I mean don't get me wrong, if my employer were to go unlimited PTO, I would absolutely use it to the max I could (perhaps take Fridays off in addition to a month long vacation each year), but I'm also sure that I would get fired for it.
Wish this term would die since it's basically meaningless when nearly all of the country has it
BUT, at the margins, at a relatively non-cynical company I was aware of one person who did their job well, but took more PTO than some vague sense of what was "reasonable" and this person was indeed penalized, despite there being no apparent mark on their performance.
I wonder why there isn't a move to offer a relatively generous PTO packages, say 6 weeks, with the option to receive up to half back as a bonus cash payment if they elected to not take all 6 weeks. That way you establish a sane baseline, but allow people who need R&R to take it without fear of reprisal.
I really like the idea, though. I would love to get an extra paycheck at the end of the year.
BUT, we were in a somewhat competitive labor market up until very recently, and likely will be again some day. A generous PTO policy grounded in explicit policy would absolutely be something I'd weigh heavily in a competitive market for labor.
Cynical me thinks this is a precursor to layoffs in order to get the debt off the books and not pay out anyone that gets "downsized" in the end.
Personally I carry a balance of close to 4 weeks (my current max accrual) as an extra cushion for job-changes or a rainy day and they will pay me out for it. I'll stick that in my emergency fund and it will serve the same function.
Since Microsoft is a commercial entity, my assumption is that they've studied the policy's effects and found that many people will take fewer than 4 weeks if you ask them to "take whatever you need and what you feel is fair", so employees will feel that they've gotten a generous gift while Microsoft will make more profits.