The only time this works is when the company's in early-days stages, when you'll be severely underpaid in cash and paid in equity instead, that the VCs have added a tolerance for crash-out-time to their spreadsheets.
I've never worked for a company that put "unlimited paid leave" in their job-ads, let alone the actual contract, so I'm curious how those things are spelled out.
Under at-will employment, the company can fire you for any (legal) reason, but if you bunk-off work all the time, but your contract says "unlimited paid leave", what case do they actually have? Has it been tested in court?
You can be fired for any reason, aside from a few exceptions, but since the "reason" simply never needs to be one of the exceptions, it undermines the point of the exceptions.
In New York, a compliance officer was fired for reporting compliance violations and this former employee challeneged that and lost, and lost on appeal, helping people realize that its a check-the-box job filling a seat.
So, as these will always be at state levels and will remain unresolved for all states within your lifetime, you have to make assumptions for how to achieve and maintain standing in society. Best to just assume its the same everywhere. As this extends to nearly anything regarding employment, there is no reason to elevate "using paid time off" as any higher reason you'll get fired than anything else. If you are intimidated and feel there will be a disruption in your ability to exchange time for food and shelter, then there is no assurance that US employment can offer you.
You have to try to make in-office leverage yourself, and then rely on the assumption that you have it.
I like unlimited PTO because it doesn't "accrue". I don't stay at places long enough to accrue PTO.
In the US contracts aren't very common for average employees. I assume that executives and maybe upper management have contracts, but not the peons. Most of the US also has at-will employment so they don't _need_ a reason to fire you.
Something like unmetered or untracked is probably a better term. Of course, it's not literally unlimited.
It really does need to come with a top-down culture of taking vacation which a senior former Netflix person told me was the case there. (Though I've also heard it varies by team.) It also isn't great if you want to switch around jobs a lot because you won't get any payout when you leave.
Though you do have issues with people taking vacation even in a more traditional system. In a prior job I took some month long vacations and there were some coworkers who were incredulous that "I could do that."
It's why so few companies want to invest in France and things like Activision Blizzard closing all their French offices. And of course, the radically lower salaries there.
This has absolutely nothing to do with companies wanting to invest in France - or not. Blizzard closing its Versailles HQ is also a very bad example, one, because they are in a middle of a massive crisis, and two, because the move was motivated by unnecessary greed and it will most likely cost them an arm and a leg in severance packages.
Yeah I put it just below what people in developed nations get, because the holidays and sick leave put it much closer on par (5-6 weeks)
I don’t consider france a productive environment that has struck a balance for doing business reliably, with a hostile sentiment that permeates down to seemingly everyone and so I don’t really put much stock in their particular labor advances
Why do you think that is? Is the balance of power in France tipped in favour of labour rather than capital? Or is the arrangement in France fairly typical for European countries, and it is countries like the US that are weird exceptions?
The US tends to be one of the only countries literally obsessed with worker productivity. Many other countries value worker happiness over worker productivity, generally speaking, partially because of a social safety net.
in australia it is standard for all full time permanent roles to have 20 days paid leave a year, in addition to national/state holidays (there are about 10 of these). moreover, if you have accrued a balance of leave when you quit your job, you get paid out for it.
having "unlimited leave" where you can't cash it out if you don't use it seems pretty bogus.
I have 30 days per year (plus another 12 days of public holidays). How does “unlimited paid leave” work? Can I just sign the contract and then never show up but still get paid? Or is it just a euphemism for “we expect you to never take a day off”?
The only time this works is when the company's in early-days stages, when you'll be severely underpaid in cash and paid in equity instead, that the VCs have added a tolerance for crash-out-time to their spreadsheets.
I've never worked for a company that put "unlimited paid leave" in their job-ads, let alone the actual contract, so I'm curious how those things are spelled out.
Under at-will employment, the company can fire you for any (legal) reason, but if you bunk-off work all the time, but your contract says "unlimited paid leave", what case do they actually have? Has it been tested in court?