Re:Travis CI: From Open to Minimum Vacation Policy
by josephschmoe on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @09:50AM
(#8729386)
While that liability is nice, I think the world is better off without it. If people know they can't take their vacation with them, they'll actually take it when it's appropriate.
The liability situation is a lose-lose one. You take less vacation because you're comfortable you'll get it and the company gets a liability on the books because you work too hard.
Without the liability, you'll see a lot of people take vacation during layoffs though.
Re:Travis CI: From Open to Minimum Vacation Policy
by dragonwriter on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @10:03AM
(#8729478)
> Without the liability, you'll see a lot of people take vacation during layoffs though.
Not necessarily -- quantitatively unlimited vacation doesn't mean that the vacation can be taken without management approval of the specific timing, it just means that its not held to a fixed limit.
In California at least, I suspect this has something more to do with accounting than experimentation, i.e. the companies don't have to have on their books the money owed if people were to leave without using all their vacation.