I have also been thinking about this as a possibility for some time now:
I just hope Cisco doesn't switch to an annual use-it-or-lose-it model or an unlimited PTO model so they don't have to pay out unused accrued PTO balances when people leave Cisco.
I hope that doesn't happen? What do you think?
The "working vacation" isn't always a scam, but you have a very valid point. I know people who didn't have much vacation when they first started, but their spouse had a bunch and needed to use it, so they did the working vacation where they worked during the day and their spouse took the kids to the beach or whatever tourist attractions there were, and they did full family stuff in the evenings and weekend.
When I was a contractor, I didn't get bereavement leave when my mother passed away. I took a few unpaid days, mostly for the travel days, the first day or two of the viewing, funeral, and making arrangements, but then stayed and worked another two weeks so I could spend time with my dad in the evenings and over the one weekend and used the second weekend to drive back.
If Cisco didn't give us so much PTO, I'd probably do more "working vacations" myself just because you don't have to vacation every hour of a day while there if you're not staying in an expensive hotel.
I like the accrued "bank" that gets paid out. I had 83 days of "terminal leave" when I got out of the service. Instead of discharging you immediately and paying for those days, the service puts you on what is called terminal leave and you keep all your benefits of being in the service until you leave runs out. You mail in your ID and you are discharged and you don't have to return to the base/post to out-process.
I've never worked for a company with unlimited PTO, but it really is limited. You have to find time in the schedule to take your time off w/o out dumping your work on your team, so it's easier for them to deny 1-2 week breaks and prefer that you take more frequent, shorter absences.
The only company I recall since 2000 that used the "use-it-or-lose-it" policy gave 10 days sick/PTO on day 1 of your first year or some pro-rated portion thereof. Then, on Jan 1 after a full year of service, you'd get 1 extra day added until 10 yrs of service and then another week added on Jan 1 after 15 yrs of service and another week after 20 yrs.
Because it was both PTO and sick time, and flu season starts in the winter, you had to keep some time for Nov/Dec illness, but they wouldn't let everyone take the last week of Dec off at the same time, so some people got screwed when they used the last of their PTO in early Dec because the people with more seniority got to save theirs until the last week and they got sick w/ no PTO left. They'd come to work sick and spread it, and then half the office would have to take time off the first week of Jan due to illness.
They would frequently refuse to allow people to take/use their PTO before their 2 weeks notice, so I had to take my remaining PTO through Dec 31 and give my 2 weeks notice on Jan 2nd. Luckily for me, they waived the 2 weeks notice and paid me for the rest of that day while I transitioned my work to someone on the team, cleaned out my desk and did my exit interview, but they decided to not pay me for the 2 weeks notice I provided (which I expected based on their past history), so next job's start date was already scheduled for the following Mon meaning I only had 3 days of unpaid break between jobs and I got to use all of the PTO they had given me.
I'd heard from others who left voluntarily, or had been forced out (individual firing, not LR's), that even though we got our lump sum PTO on Jan 1, if they'd used more than the prorated portion they'd have earned by the time they were terminated, the company would garnish their last paycheck to claw back the PTO pay. I don't see how that's legal since it's a use or lose, not accrued PTO balance that you earn each paycheck.
That and the ridiculously low pay compared to other companies.
It must depend on the job role. I got a $15/hr rate increase joining Cisco back in the early 2000's as a contractor. Then the pay was the same when I converted, but because the benefits were so much cheaper, it was effectively another pay raise.
When I left Cisco, the next two companies were in the same ballpark salary wise. Although one did the contractor-to-employee conversion route, but the contractor pay was double Cisco's. And paid straight time for every hour worked past 40. But required contractors to not work the business day on either side of all company/bank holidays because managers might be off and unable to supervise us, so there were 27 unpaid days per year. I didn't like converting because they kept working me 50-60 hrs per week, but suddenly I wasn't paid for the hrs beyond 40 and the pay was back to Cisco employee rates.
And the other company had the use-it-or-lose-it policy that sucked.
Vacation is the only release time people get from wage slavery. It's a very important issue for most. That's why people ask about it in interviews. It's why employers offer the information before hiring new people. Very valid reason to not want to work somewhere.
That and the ridiculously low pay compared to other companies.
If they do, they are just going to increase their attrition problem.
I don't think that management would care that people leave just because they can't carry a PTO balance. If that's someone's reason for leaving they'd be wise to not share that during the interview for their next job. It's not a quality of a candidate likely to get hired, or one you'd care to retain.
@dwo+1eD3GBhF They don’t view the attrition as a problem. ELT have stated this.
If they do, they are just going to increase their attrition problem.
I worked for a company that had a use it or lose it policy, it applied to everyone but California employees. In California you can't loose a benefit earned, so companies can't have a use it or lose it policy. They can, and Cisco does, cap accruals.
Moving to an unlimited PTO model is more likely. Studies have shown that people use less PTO in systems like this. Maybe they don't want to stand out on some report. Big win for the companies. No more accruals, no more liability on the books. You would log PTO and burn down what you have until it's zero. After that its between you and your manager whether you're taking enough or too much. From the standpoint of why we have PTO letting the PTO bank get so big is contrary to the purpose. But its also used for sick time and we all know the layoff routine so having a PTO bank is cushion for that day.
I suspect that one reason people have huge PTO balances is the "working vacation" scam. I'm going on vacation but will be working remote. Since most managers don't manage people well they have no idea whether that person is actually productive or not. Then again, a lot of folks sitting at their desks aren't terribly productive. A lot of paper shuffling goes on but little gets done most weeks.