I've implemented a "get it done" based vacation policy at my company. I.e., as long as my devs are getting the work done, I couldn't care less about their seat time, physical location, state of dress, etc. Hell, if you're on a beach in Cancun and only working a couple hours a day, that's cool, just make sure you get your code checked in and answer emails within a reasonable timeframe so we don't miss a deadline. And wear sunscreen. Developers and sunlight don't usually mix well.
With that said, if one of my guys did what this guy is advocating, I'd have little choice but to replace them. I have to be able to rely on my guys; I trust the hell out of them. Bailing for a month plus with little to no warning...that fractures our relationship of trust, and no relationship can succeed in that condition.
Good points, and wow, I didn't expect to find myself defending a four year old blog post today.
I'm not sure where you get the "little to no warning" bit from what I wrote. In the examples I cited, I gave about 2 months notice in both cases. The idea is certainly not to burn bridges or blackmail your employer. Just that it's OK to take the odd sabbatical.
I eventually migrated to consulting, where I could simply end a contract then disappear for the rest of the year. And from there, I migrated further to running my own product company, where you can disappear for 4 years straight as long as you have a laptop along.
Still, if I had a job today I wouldn't limit myself to 2 weeks vacation.
The two months notice part wasn't real clear in what you wrote; that definitely alters the context of the post.
And I agree 100%: two weeks vacation is just dumb. People have families, kids, friends...that stuff is more important than work; once work gets more important than those things life gets hollow.
Don't get me wrong, I love this kind of "get it done" policy, but it's not vacation if you work "a couple hours a day". Vacation is when you are able to really forget about work for a while.
That being said, I fully agree about the impossibly short warning time he's advocating. Six months sounds more like it.
I get that; that's why we define a "vacation" by the amount of time one of my guys is going dark. If you're going dark for two weeks, that's a vacation. If you're going to be scuba diving and only checking emails nightly, that's just reduced production capacity...just let me know so I can plan for it and please don't do it right before a deadline. :)
IMO this issue is indicative of the relationship between employee/employer. The tone of the OP is so "eff you, I'm outta here" that the relationship must already be dysfunctional; there's a lack of trust and respect and that's ultimately the employer's responsibility. Something is wrong with the company's culture.
I don't remember a vacation where I didn't "work" - willingly. I usually get bored and get the itch to write some code. I guess that happens when your work is the same as your hobby.
So I've got that you don't mind where or what your devs are doing so long as the tasks get completed, which is awesome, and that you can't do long vacations with no warning, which is reasonable.
What's your stance on long vacations with warning? One month's notice? Two?
I mentioned this in another response, but I believe this issue really has more to do with who you hire, how well you pay them, how you treat them, etc. It's more about the execution of philosophy, not the composition of and adherence to policy.
To be real candid we've not run into a situation yet where a developer was going off the grid for a bit over a week at a time. The devs we hire are really really talented and they go into withdrawal if they don't open an IDE for a couple of days. They're compulsive coders...I mean, I pay them to do what they do, but most of their motivation is internal. The common thread is that they all have a passion for development, and that shines through.
My belief is that hiring decisions are the most important ones I make, so I want to know the people I'm hiring and I want them to know me. This is going to sound cheesy and it's not one-size-fits-all, but it all comes down to cultivating relationships.
So I talk to devs via email that I've met on HN. Or on twitter. Or at <insert language here> user groups. Or via other devs. I'm interested in what they're working on...not just because I might want to hire them, but because development is interesting, right? That's why we all read HN. :) And developers rarely get to talk to people that "get" what they're doing outside of their work colleagues.
It's a great way to learn about new things. It's a great way to get questions answered when you bump up against an issue. It's a great way to help other devs when they hit a wall that you've maybe hit before. And it also a fantastic way to find guys you think might want to work with you and vice versa.
I know that sounds really kumbaya, and it probably doesn't scale or whatever. But I'm not trying to be a huge enterprise software company that has revenues in the gazillions. I'm just trying to be a small shop that does really amazing work and is a place where really good geeks love to work.
I'm ok with having a distributed team; in an ideal world we'd be able to get together physically more than we do. But if there's an amazing talent in Seattle or someplace else really far from where I live I'm not going to let geographic separation keep me from working with that person.
But...I definitely don't have it all figured out for sure...half the time I feel like that xckd strip where the guy freaks out as he's signing his mortgage loan because he still thinks about how cool it would be to be Batman.
I think this makes a really good point. What the blog post advocates is essentially blackmail.
There's a huge difference between planning for a month or two off with several months notice and simply walking in to your boss's office and telling them you'll be gone for a couple months, starting this Friday.
Also, why not simply bring this up when you're being hired. I regularly take a 4-5 week vacation once every two years or so to visit in-laws in another country. I tell my employers about this up front.
We were; in fact we just hired a developer that starts next week that I'm hyper-geeked up to have on board. The dude is so much smarter than I am. It's awesome.
That said, shoot me an email and we can get a dialogue going. I'm not sure when we'll hire again but we only hire those with whom I've established some type of relationship beyond a resume and cover letter. :)
I wish I could take a month off! My manager won't let me, unfortunately: he gets all anxious and irritable after a few days whenever I don't show up at work.
I've been happily self-employed (freelance web development) for two years. Last year I took about 2.5 months off to work on my own project. It goes like this:
- start saying no to everyone
- spend about a month winding down existing projects
- enjoy your break, do something you love for a while
- when you get below $X in savings, ask around for work
Basically, there is a one month spin-down period and a one-month spin-up period. You have to have pretty good deal flow (i.e. you are already telling people no most of the time) to try this, and it's still stressful when you start to worry about whether your savings will last. But as long as your work doesn't inherently require you to be on call, you can wind things down and shift responsibilities around. As long as you're considerate of your customer's needs when doing this, they'll be willing to accommodate you. And you can practice this whenever you wind down an existing project in order to switch to a more interesting and/or lucrative one, a skill you ought to be practicing at least a couple of times a year if you're an excellent programmer.
I think this works if you're a one man shop...once you hire employees, though, things change. A lot. You have to keep your business running because your devs have trusted you with their family's financial well-being; you have a responsibility to keep the business healthy.
How much "keeping things running" is actually needed? I'd imagine disappearing completely for a couple months wouldn't work, but what about a couple months of signing on only on Monday mornings?
I think that's contingent on your business model and the maturity of your company.
I can only speak to my biz: most of our revenue is service (although we're trying to migrate to product). So we have three primary "departments," if you will: sales, production, service/support. I've chosen to staff out "production" first with kickass developers. But somebody has to take care of sales and service. Service/support, we've automated that pretty efficiently and only bother devs with processed support issues.
Sales, however, still requires the cultivation and management of client relationships. You can't just phone that in, and the way we've grown our business has been via relationship (i.e., referrals and word-of-mouth). So even if I was 100% out of production (which I'm not, yet), there's still the bizdev side.
At least that's how it is now; two years in the future I'll probably have a different answer and perspective. A lot of this stuff you just figure it out as you go; there's not a book out there that tell you how to run your biz.
I never considered that before - how DO entrepreneurs take time off? Is this done post-post-/Ramen profitability? Never? Just for a day at a time? Or does the flexible schedule prolong burnout?
This is one of the first things you'll notice being in business for yourself. It's hard to arrange time off. One of the benefits of working for a company is that there's a team in place to make sure the train stays on the rails while you're gone.
That's one of the hardest parts of running your own business IMO. I had to have an op, recommended recuperation was 2weeks of bed rest, I was back working the next day; yes there were deleterious effects on my health.
And yet, you'll probably find as I did, that if you disappear for a week or so, nothing really terrible happens. With clients, it's easy - tell them you're gone. When you run an SaaS, it's not as easy, but I became so ill I wasn't able to do a thing… and we lost maybe one customer.
The others who were waiting on my emails got a very sincere apology and explanation, and we were all good.
This goes to show that you only think you have to be there all the time.
Automate everything that can possibly be automated, and when one goes on vacation, check email a few times a day. Might even be able to get some work in during the evenings.
Also, the flexible schedule allows for mini vacations whenever you need it, which helps a lot. It's great to be able to blow off work whenever an opportunity to do something great comes up, as long as you're disciplined about getting things done other times.
You can look at it that way, but not so much true. The great thing about being a self employed is that it doesn't matter where you work.
I take my computer with me everywhere I go, even on vacation. I've had conference calls in the morning and hit Disney World in the afternoon. Usually my customers don't even realize I'm out and about.
So while you could say that your not really on vacation just remote, you could look at it the other way and realize you could spend a month in Florida on vacation and still make a few bucks in the process. I've been on vacations that have paid for themselves simply by putting a little work in for half a day here and there.
This is basically exactly what I was going to say. I'm currently spending a week far from home base wind and kite surfing. Once in the morning and once in the afternoon, I answer customer questions/suggestions, and after dinner I spend 4 or 5 hours fixing bugs and working on implementing something.
It's really hard, especially during the first couple years, but my only perspective is as a bootstrapper, I think funded people maybe have more flexibility (or maybe not? I dunno).
My experience is that you just have to force yourself to stop working. It's terribly easy to let your business tak over your life. Me, I just force myself to forget about everything but the bat-phone on Sundays.
I can't reply as a funded person since I'm also a bootstrapper, but having done work for some startups they typically have directors which work for the funding group that sit around and make sure their money is working hard. So I imagine they have less flexibility.
About three weeks ago, I went to my employer to negotiate part-time employment. I am now working 3 days a week at 2/3 pay, full benefits, and prorated vacation.
The caveats are that I was prepared to resign, the agreement includes a stipulation that either side can rescind the arrangement with 30 days notice, and our HR department was already set up to handle such arrangements.
I wanted to do something like this for a long time, but I was too afraid to ask.
I've been considering negotiating part-time with my employer for awhile as a prudent middle ground between recklessly jumping ship (a la http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1451175) and continuing to let my UI project crawl along at a near-standstill.
Your listed caveats help me form a good picture of what I should be ready to concede. Any more tips on negotiating? I know there are always a lot of variables from company to company, but was it hard to keep full benefits?
I wish I could say that I drove a hard bargain to get full benefits, but it happens to be company policy. I went in to the meeting prepared to increase my portion of the cost of my healthcare if necessary.
My biggest concerns prior to initiating the negotiations were 1) affecting morale if someone else is forced to compensate for my reduced hours, 2) the fact that I occasionally do freelance mobile development on the side, and 3) possibly being let go as my company is going through a downsizing. So far, it hasn't been an issue, but it's early.
It turns out that my freelance work is a non-issue according to my employment contract and IP agreement. I didn't really reduce my hours to do freelance work. Instead, I was doing freelance work to insure some modest income should I be forced to resign, and I may reduce my efforts there since I can easily live just on the income from my part-time work. My boss and his boss were cool about the freelancing, but they told me to keep it to myself, and I wish that I had been more private about my side interests prior to asking to go part time.
In your case, I would check up on the IP situation. You don't really want to be in a position where there are questions about who owns your side project.
As far as negotiating tips, what worked for me - I don't know that this is great advice necessarily but I had to do it this way because it addressed the worst case scenario in terms of short-term income - was that I was resolved to resign, even though it wasn't really my first choice in improving my situation. However, I have about 1 year's living expenses saved up and I'm making close to $1K a week doing 20 hours of freelance mobile development and turning down projects just about every day. That gave me the confidence to start the conversation by saying, "I am considering resigning." Eventually, I suggested the work schedule that I was willing to consider. I had researched the company HR site to know what options were available to me. I also felt reasonably confident that they want me to stay and that it would be hard to replace me, at least in the short term.
One thing that is bad about bringing up resignation is that it will likely keep you from collecting unemployment if your employer plays hard ball. I never said "I resign," just that I was considering it, but I have been advised since then that it was probably a bad idea from that standpoint. It probably didn't matter in my case because I wouldn't be eligible anyway due to my freelance income.
Also, I have a very friendly relationship with my boss, so that helps a lot. It seemed that he really wanted to help me, and he played up the cost savings angle up the management ladder to help me get what I wanted.
Having been in a similar situation ("I need to resign or work part time"), I think the best thing you can do is show awareness of the effect it will have on your coworkers and suggest ways in which this will work out.
For example: "I suggest I keep the 60% of my job that is the most onerous for someone else to take and/or requires the most prior experience and/or is best matched to my skills. As for the other 40%, I suggest task A should go to Fred - he is ready for more experience, it will be good for him. Task B can be phased out when the new project is completed anyway. Jane has agreed to roll in Task C with the similar Task D that she already performs".
I have been doing this for several years, and it has worked out great for everybody. The only issue is whether the tasks you give up are important for your career development - sometimes they are, so you will have to make some serious choices.
May I ask what company you work for? I've never heard of HR supporting something like this at any of the companies I or my friends have worked for. Is it something they support but don't advertise? I'd love to have a setup like this in a few years.
Several years ago, at my second "real job", I walked in with a job offer for 20% more and got to keep my salary and work 20% less (4 days a week) instead.
At a previous job, after an arduous interviewing process including programming tests, several interviews, background and credit checks, and finally my references being grilled over the phone, I made it to salary negotiation and I was too tired by then and didn't care if I got the job or not. So I asked for $X (in annual salary) the CEO misunderstood me and thought I wanted $X/hour. I signed the papers and was pulled into the balcony where hands were shaken and well deserved cigarettes were lit by all involved.
I didn't realize what happened until my girlfriend went over the papers (she was worried about the IP papers I might have signed, given my startup ambitions) but when we saw the figures ..
It was $55k in excess of what I thought I was worth. Pants. Shat.
That gave me some serious professional backbone; once you start to make serious money, you tend to respect your career a whole lot more. I was so proud of myself I took up management responsibilities, studied software engineering really well, took on more tasks. Sure, it made me a workaholic, but it drove the point home that what I do is serious business.
Great story, but do you really mean you got your annual salary per HOUR? Perhaps you meant per month? Still awesome, of course, but within the realm of reason :-)
There are about 2000 work hours in a year, give or take, so I'm assuming he said something like "55" meaning $55,000/yr but the CEO heard $55/hr which would be more like $110,000/yr.
My interpretation is, for example, he asked for "fifty-five" meaning "$55,000/year". They instead interpreted it as "$55/hour" which would work out to around $110,000/year assuming a standard 2,000 hours worked a year.
Looks like MrFoof and erlanger posted at the same moment so I'll reply to myself. Your explanation makes complete sense. Thanks!
It would be interesting to use this in reverse: claim that you meant hourly rate when discussing salary. "Oh, you thought I meant $100k? No, no, I make $100 per hour now so double that for the salary level I'm at."
He's right. And it's getting worse. We have a bunch of open req's right now as we're staffing up a new project and you'd think with all the handwringing about the economy and how many great engineers are being laid off it would be easy, right? Nope. It actually seems like the quality of applicants has gone down since the last time I was interviewing people.
Out of all the people we've interviewed, there's ONE that I would say is a good hire (as opposed to just "can probably do the job with some hand-holding"), and the rest of the interview team is lukewarm on him. And this is after HR has screened out the bottom of the barrel and our technical phone screens have filtered out a few more. ONE person who's just a "nice to have" and there's a good chance we're going to pass on him.
If anyone here threatened to quit, at this point we'd probably chain him to his desk :-)
It actually seems like the quality of applicants has gone down since the last time I was interviewing people.
Many companies didn't need to lay people off, but used the financial crisis/recession as an excuse to clean house.
Last time around, you were interviewing people who were leaving because they wanted something better. This time around, you are interviewing a lot people who were forced out.
Minnesota is polarized - there are a lot of independent developers and a lot of Fortune 500 programming jobs. Not a lot in between.
I've hired a dozen programmers here in my day, and so it is definitely possible to find good developers. But you really have to know the right communities, user groups, etc. to find them. Of course, I expect that isn't MN-specific.
Are you opening to hiring someone who is not on-site? You could always fly them in for a few days each month to get in face time. This could really open up a stream of high-quality applicants.
Yeah, it is strange. Looks like a job for an ambitious economy phd student - explain how it's possible that a market exists which is a "market for lemons" on both sides :)
There are obviously lots of people looking for work, so I am guessing the real issue is not that there aren't competent people out there, but how to spot them...
> "It actually seems like the quality of applicants has gone down since the last time I was interviewing people."
Makes sense. As another poster brought up, the market has more laid off people right now than voluntary job seekers. Not only that, keep in mind people (even highly employable ones) are playing things more conservatively given the economic climate - many of the good engineers don't even hit the open market before they're snapped up through their own network.
You don't have contact information in your profile, and I didn't find it easily on your blog. I'd love to hear details about the positions that are available.
Thanks for the reminder; I've practically abandoned that blog due to lack of time to play with LEDs. I thought I had email addy in my profile, have to check that.
Basically, if you have a technical degree (I think HR drops that requirement if you have 20 years experience) and show up for an interview with a robot or other automated mechanism you built yourself from scratch (yes, I work with a few people, self included, who've done just that), I'll go all out to find a reason to hire you because that tells me you can probably learn whatever we want you to know on the job.
Lacking a robot: OK, I just deleted a bunch of "real" job requirements that we would claim we need. They don't really matter to me or the hiring team.
We want someone who's bright, who's somewhat personable and not afraid to talk or even brag about his/her accomplishments during the interview and who understands OO development and has at least passing familiarity with C++. Those, and at least a BS in a technical field, are the only really "must have" requirements.
You should be able to show during the interview that you can at least attempt to solve problems. We don't ask trick questions like how many gas stations are on top of Mount Fuji, we just want to know if we drop a pile of requirements on your desk, you can design and implement a solid solution to meet them.
You'd think that wouldn't be hard to find...you'd be wrong!
Basically, if you have a technical degree (I think HR drops that requirement if you have 20 years experience)
Perhaps this is part of why you're having so much trouble...do you really think that the equivalent of a 4-year "technical degree" (of any kind?) is two decades of experience? I bet there are scores of people out there who have only several years of solid technical experience who know way more about getting shit done than the average recent grad. Just my .02
i'm just getting into robotics lately via home projects. done C++ in the past but prefer C or Python. Unwilling to move to Minnesota but if a remote team member in Colorado could work feel free to ping me and we can talk more.
Is the job interesting? Stable? Are you running things?
'Cuz I like hard problems and can write beautiful code in a dozen languages all along the spectrum from Fortran to Perl, C++ inclusive. Skim my HN comments if you want to verify that I've got a head on my shoulders, or send me an email and ask me to brag. I'm in the market for a job in Denver, Colorado, and the location's about the only part that's not negotiable.
We've seen the same, you would have thought with the financial crisis there would be loads of talented developers with investment banking/trading experience on the market. Nope, the good ones stayed put and the accumulated deadwood was purged, the people who were hired in the boom time just to fill put headcount who never should have been in the industry in the first place.
My sympathies are limited tho', those guys were handed a golden opportunity to get the skills and experience after they were hired. But if they'd taken it, they wouldn't be back on the market now...
He's right about two weeks not being the rule; in most western countries four or five weeks is the rule.
To me the amount of holiday/vacation is a Big Deal.
I was lucky when I lived in the US that my company offered four weeks (and I could earn extra comp days doing weekend tech support). Although I once had the general manager ask me point blank how I was taking more time off for a trip to Peru, so I went through and proved I had enough vacation days left. He still didn't seem too happy about it though. Perhaps most people didn't use all their vacation days?
Lack of vacation days is one of the reasons I'd be uncomfortable about living in the US again, so I could definitely see myself taking unpaid leave every few years like TFA suggests or just quitting my job. Then I could do important things like visiting family in NZ or getting in some serious skiing.
Meanwhile, in Sweden, 5 weeks paid vacation per year is the legal minimum, and everyone has the legal right to get 4 weeks continuous vacation in the period between June-August if they want it.
(I think you have to spend a few winters up here to understand why we appreciate summer vacations so much. :-) )
To sort of tie back to the original post, with a vacation culture that is completely different from the US, situations like in the blog post never really happens here. Everyone gets several weeks off every year, so businesses adjust for it. Everyone knows that June-July-August are "slow" months. No manager will ever be surprised by people asking to take several weeks off whenever. If you work at a larger company, there are always routines in place for covering for people during the summer months, and you usually make sure that there's always someone around that can handle things.
If you work in the manufacturing industry, there's nationwide coordination so all of it shuts down at the same time, usually four weeks in July.
It's a completely different culture, and definitely worth knowing if you ever do business with companies in Europe during the summer.
I think it's actually four weeks in June-August, three of which consecutive. Still good though. Not to mention that many parents of small children begin and end the vacation with some parental leave (to which the employer can't say, if two months advance notice is given) so 7-8 weeks is not uncommon.
Here in Europe vacation does not necessarily imply that you're flying somewhere else. For example, I currently have 3 weeks of, but I'm only spending one of these weeks hiking. During the other weeks I'll do just whatever makes fun (maybe going on a multi-day bike ride).
Of course, you can also take less vacation in one year, and therefore take more in the next year. For example, I only took 3 weeks of vacation last year, and I've planned 7 weeks of vacation this year. All of them paid. :)
Everyone's free to do whatever. Personally, I spent a week in Bali this Easter, it was very nice to get away from the snow and ice for a while, and I'm gonna take three weeks now in July and do pretty much nothing, just enjoying the summer weather.
You'd want to be pretty sure of your value to your employer before trying this stunt. Here's a counter-example: a young guy that reports directly to me tried to reduce the number of hours he has to work, by threatening to leave if we didn't reduce his hours (whilst keeping pay at the same level). This conversation was with my boss, I only gave him work to do, HR stuff was always handled by my boss. He was out the door of the company 24 hours later.
There are two important differences between the two stories, which may well explain the different endings.
First, the post is about taking unpaid leave, rather than (as in your example) effectively demanding a raise by reducing work.
Second, the poster never threatened to leave, which is in my experience always a poor tactic. Instead he effectively did leave and then engaged the company in considering bringing him back onboard after the time he needed, which flipped the power balance in the negotiation. The company was no longer in a position of strength because he had eliminated it's power to fire him - they had already lost and could only realize a gain by negotiating to retain a proven employee and save the cost of recruiting a replacement.
I've successfully used the same approach in the past. However, you must be committed to the outcome and be willing to leave (or have already left). I'd never consider trying it as a bluff.
I wouldn't really consider it a counter-example since in your case the guy was essentially demanding a raise. It's all about how you ask and being reasonable. Less hours for the same pay is not reasonable. Less hours for less pay would be far more reasonable, and might even have been accepted.
Less hours for same pay is an extremely reasonable compromise, in these times when many companies can't/won't pass out much in the form of direct raises.
Explicitly threatening to quit during any negotiation is the unreasonable part. Frankly, it's an implied threat in any conversation about compensation, just as being fired is an implied threat in any conversation about performance.
But coming out and saying it, is wildly unprofessional and immature; there's just no up-side.
>Explicitly threatening to quit during any negotiation is the unreasonable part. Frankly, it's an implied threat in any conversation about compensation, [...] coming out and saying it, is wildly unprofessional and immature; there's just no up-side.
If it's implied then making it explicit is simply clarifying one-anothers position. I can't see how that's unprofessional: Being honest, open and explicit about your intentions.
Leaving because negotiation didn't work for you when you made no explicit indication that your staying was part of the negotiation, that seems wrong to me.
> "If it's implied then making it explicit is simply clarifying one-anothers position"
The only reason to state it is to add emotion to the argument: to dramatically emphasize your resolve. And the problem with that, is the next negotiation has to go to at least that point again to convince the other party you really do mean it.
So if you were earnest about having been at the end of your rope in the first negotiation, you earn only the certainty of being pushed back to the end of your rope in every subsequent negotiation. It's self-defeating and adds wholly unnecessary stress to the workplace.
And if you're advocating emotional argument in every negotiation... well, good luck with that. It adds a tangible degree of stress to everyone around you and they won't appreciate it.
>he problem with that, is the next negotiation has to go to at least that point again to convince the other party you really do mean it.
But you were saying that the argument is already at that point but that card is just being held below the table despite everyone being aware that it is there.
It's not necessarily emotional - I can say "I'll leave if I don't get these terms", that's not inherently an emotional demand, nor is it overly dramatic if that's your intention.
It's pretty much all-in wrt the negotiation so yes I can see that it increases the stress until terms are agreed. But then the terms from the other side would have to include something to avoid such negotiations if they found it too stressful and/or emotional.
Nor does this necessarily lead to future difficulties in negotiation.
For sure someone could attempt to use this sort of situation for emotional leverage - I guess it depends whether you're talking about negotiation pay+conditions for a job or negotiating terms of a personal relationship.
Well less hours and same pay in the form of a raise is perfectly reasonable when you provide a substantial value to the company, though this is obviously not the case with your parent comment.
Another thing is that you only tend to add value to a company after a large amount of time (decade[s]) and even so you may not even be adding value after that amount of time.
You are adding value from the beginning or they wouldn't be paying you - that is what you are there for. Caveat - sometime it takes a little while for a new hire to be brought up to speed on exactly how a company does things, the code base, and so forth, but it is rarely as long as a month.
the situations are kind of different, though. the obvious one is that this guy wanted to still get paid. but, in most companies there is precedent and policy for extended leave without pay.
At my last "real" full-time job, developers could accumulate vacation time that was not used in a given year. Sometimes it was on purpose, so as to take longer vacations later on, often it was required because of deadlines, staffing shortages, whatever.
Then one day the new company owner declares that vacation time could no longer be accrued. Use it or lose it. Some folks had many weeks of time saved up.
The owner said that people can use up what they've already saved, but added, Keep in mind that if your department can afford to do without you for several weeks then perhaps you're not so essential. He all but winked when he said it.
This was just one of the things that convinced me to just leave and work for myself.
I have a somewhat-related story about the last place I worked. During my first year there the company was in the process of replacing half a dozen consultants with a handful of full-time employees. We worked very hard with limited resources and weren't allowed to take a vacation. Even working on the end-of-year holidays to complete deadlines before the end of the calendar year. Our manager kept telling us that we could carry over our accrued vacation time and be "taken care of" next year. And there was a policy of carrying over vacation days to the next calendar year.
So the start of the next year comes and my team gets our first paycheck and for some reason we all have zero vacation time. We are all stunned and quickly talk to HR. It turns out that employees can carry over vacation days, but _NOT_ in your first year of tenure. So the team lost all of our vacation days and restarted at zero. Our manager looked into it and discovered that those were the rules. He went to his manager to see if we could get our vacations back but he couldn't get anyone from HR to change their mind as "that was the policy". Needless to say, we were pretty pissed off.
I like the message given about taking time for yourself - relaxing, etc. I do it far too infrequently and every time I do take a real vacation I realize how badly I need to.
But to walk in with no notice and tell your employer that you're disappearing for 3 months is unprofessional and unreasonable. You work for a company which has schedules and deadlines; just as you expect them to pay you on time, they expect to have at least a little bit of warning before you up and disappear on them.
3 Months vacation - great. Presumably you expect to get it unpaid (Your employer probably gives you 2 weeks PAID vacation) and many employers with a few weeks warning would be happy to accomodate you. But to tell them "I'm leaving - see ya!" and expect to have a job waiting for you? Come on.
And if you don't bother telling your manager ahead of time - you run the very real risk of his ire and wrath...
As the trunk poster said - you can only pull this off if you are really good at what you do, and prepared for the negative consequences if they happen.
That's one of the few things I like about our dirty socialist system over here in Europe: it recognizes that 2 weeks of holidays / year simply is not enough.
I don't live in the U.S. and I have five weeks of paid vacation in a year, but I usually take several weeks of unpaid vacation as well to go with it. My employer doesn't really care which type it will be, they're more concerned about schedules etc. In fact, after I've got the time of my vacation approved, I'll just mark some days as paid and some days as unpaid and they don't mind.
With regard to vacation allocations, I play it safe: if I need anything longer than a week off, I'll request the absence in good time. This works well because a) they can project it into the project schedules and b) if I want six weeks off next fall, they really don't have a practical schedule for next fall yet, so I get implied priority.
Oh, and I work part time as well. There was more to that when I started it but basically it boiled down to them saying "we'll rather keep a good guy working less for us than not at all". I get roughly the same amount of work done as before, the shorter days just mean that if I want to take a half a day off and go cycling, that's actually the default mode of operation as nobody expects me to work till 5 or 6pm.
I work for Microsoft in Ireland. We get 25 vacation days (5 weeks) as soon as we are hired! Getting an extra week of unpaid leave is common enough with very little hassle.
Fortunately, I work at a shop where I don't need to force this issue. I took four weeks off this spring to road trip and climb with my family. I had three weeks of PTO in hand, and my manager, and his manager said go for it, under the condition that I wouldn't go dark for more than a few days at a time. So, I checked my email every few days, and I think twice over the course of that month I actually had to fire up my laptop and spend 30-60 minutes to troubleshoot an issue. That's a compromise I can live with.
Vacation time is a brutal inhumane joke in America, IMHO. There's no minimum, and a number of companies provide no vacation time for employees in their first year. Even when vacation time is provided, sometimes its pretty limited or the company culture makes it hard to take all the time allowed.
Other countries, particularly in Europe, get it, but we don't. I recommend reading "Work to Live" (as opposed to 'live to work') by Joe Robinson http://www.amazon.com/Work-Live-Joe-Robinson/dp/0399528504 for an overview of the US vs. European nations.
I'm all for having a killer work ethic, but I believe you're more efficient when you're refreshed and not burned out. And sometimes your subconscious mind works well on solving problems that you wouldn't be able to tackle if you keep down in the trenches without a break.
I've found that frequent, little getaways (3-day weekend, for example) are more refreshing and improve my quality of life more than one rare, large vacation. YMMV.
That might be a sign that your typical workweek is too stressful. For most jobs I've had, it took zero or one day to wind me down. My most stressful job (as a middle school teacher) took me two days to wind down.
It all depends on where you are. One guy tried to get 4 weeks off at a place I used to work. He needed sign off from a high up manager to do this. The manager retorted if we can get by without this guy for 4 weeks, why do we really need him at all? Suffice to say, he didn't take his 4 weeks holiday.
yeah, this sounds fine for the bachelor developer with no one dependent upon them. When you have a family things change. I am good at what I do and I have plenty saved up in an emergency fund, but the risk of potentially losing my job, benefits, etc. just to take a month off isn't worth it. That being said, I do get 4 weeks PTO (no sick/vac all is PTO), so I suppose I could take a month off if I wanted to. But I'd rather split it up during the year.
Idea for my fellow Americans: we need to ask our bosses here for a 5-week leave of absence so we can vacation in Sweden. Once in Sweden start looking for a job and then citizenship. :)
"Cut to 3 years later, and I'm on a small, tight programming team for a little dot-com startup. I've been there for almost a year, and it's time for a bit of R&R in Central America. 6 weeks off should just about do it"
Does this remind anyone of yesterdays article about the guy who took a month off for a honeymoon? It's one thing to take advantage of a large corporation but if you are screwing your startup for your own vacation, you are being extremely selfish and possibly detrimental to the company. It's fine if you need to recharge your batteries, but its another thing entirely to leave your startup, and your friends, to get more vacation time. If the startup failed, you lost much, much more than you gained by going to Costa Rica.
I'm not talking about working at a normal job, I'm talking about working at a startup. At a startup you have a tremendous amount of responsibility because a large portion of the companies success/failure rests on your shoulders. You also have other people who have put a tremendous amount of faith in you and rely heavily on you.
If you would rather take month long vacations to go backpack around exotic locations, go work for a big company. If you do this at a startup, chances are you are putting your company, and your co-workers, future at risk.
If you want to work at a startup, especially as an early employee, there are certain responsibilities that you must live up to. This author, like the founder of the failed YC company, is selfish. Either life gets in the way of a startup or a startup gets in the way of life, but its not often you get both.
I completely agree. Many Indians here often travel to India for a month or two and even save up vacation time over a couple years and use it all at once.
You have to take this advice on a case by case basis. At my last job they offered me a 10k raise as I was walking out the door, but also got upset when anyone used more than 3 sick days a year. At my current job I take 4-8 weeks of paid vacation a year and probably could take more, but if I asked for a 10k raise they would tell me to move into sales.
Depends on your current projects, don't think I would be comfortable coming in one day and telling my coworkers that what I was working on is going to stand still for a month or someone else was going to have to pick it all up if a project is at a key point in development.
There was a big emphasis in the post about making sure your projects are tied up before you leave. I don't think anybody is advocating leaving your coworkers high and dry by skipping out on your deadlines at the drop of a hat.
Yeah, he is right on with respect to "your employer needs you more than you need them". We have been trying to hire someone for months, and it's just insanely difficult. If I left for some reason, I would get an instant raise for going to a competitor, and the department's productivity would be lower until they could find a replacement, which is very difficult and expensive.
Fortunately, I have never even had to hint at this option.
I'd wager this gets you fired more often than not. Nobody is so great at what they do that they can contribute while not working.
When I've people try something similar at work, the request is met with "lets have a talk". The guy making the request usually leaves the company a few days/weeks/months later, as it "just wasn't working out".
But you're saying the guys are leaving, they're not fired. Maybe after the talk they realise that their life is more important than being loyal to a company that won't let them take a little time off.
totally true. the most valid point being that you have to be good at what you do. hell, you can do even better if you are really good. I wanted to see what it was like to live in London so I told my boss I'll be working out of there is he's okay with it. If not I'll be taking a leave of absence. He agreed to the work remotely. Tap on 3 weeks on vacation to the end of that and you feel like half the year is done for.
I'm not saying we shouldn't live a relaxed, sustainable work-life, but seriously?
Sounds to me like you abused your leverage. Almost any employee, especially at a small company, is extraordinarily valuable and, sure, can use that to take (see: extort) 6 weeks vacation, but it's disrespectful to the organization. The cost to replace you outweighs the cost of letting you leave for 6 weeks if you are good. You're right economically.
Ethically it's a dick move (even if you do it "once every few years" 6 weeks of unannounced leave is really not cool). And if you don't feel like you have a relationship with your work where you have to respect it you shouldn't come back from that vacation.
There is a place in the world for salaryman-level loyalty to one's company, but it sure isn't anywhere where they have a word for "at-will employment". For a typical American company, I do two weeks of work for you, you cut me a paycheck, and we are even. We have an ethical, professional relationship -- and if it is not mutually beneficial, a firm handshake and some polite chitchat about possibly doing business in the future and then I'm out the door.
Small companies that I do not own are companies. Does my status as a "small employee" (only one of me, and not externally funded!) entitle me to lifetime employment regardless of my productivity? No? Then I am not a salaryman and you should not expect me to act like one.
Absolutely, but my point was if you have a relationship with your employer where you feel they are extorting you you should leave and find some place where they aren't.
The employer-side of that exploitation-maneuver would be your boss telling you: "We do not have anything for you to do the next 6 weeks, starting tomorrow. You will not be paid but if you want, you can come back later."
If that happens at your company, go ahead and take your leave. If it does not happen, you may be overplaying your exploitation a little.
This happened to me. I promptly informed them that they hadn't hired me as a contractor, hand't been paying me the rates I demand as a contractor, and bid them farewell.
Back when I was working full-time jobs, I'd tell them up front about the amount of travel I do (and usually they'd see my suntan and hear about whatever trip I just got back from), so they knew what to expect. I've even gone as far as to negotiate away my stock options in exchange for an extra couple weeks vacation each year.
I could not disagree more. Why should an employee not use every ounce of leverage he can muster to make his life better?
It's tough to find great people. If you're that good, you should be compensated richly - in money, freedom, or whatever else you can work out.
I think in practice, most companies organize themselves so as not to be beholden to one individual, thus preventing extreme cases of this sort of thing.
Good point. Some people want money, some people want time and freedom (especially once their monetary needs are covered). There are other ways companies can compensate people beyond their salary.
I disagree. Once every few years sounds acceptable. Unannounced is unacceptable, but provided that you have your house in order and everyone knows what's going on beforehand, it just becomes a simple planning exercise for the manager. Mileage may vary depending on how responsible the employee is, and company size; team of 3... maybe not. team of 5,6,7+... probably doable.
It is neither extortion nor underhanded, nor dishonest if the employee openly and honestly negotiates it before leaving. Unless their contract explicitly has termination penalties if they quit to early (fairly rare in the software world), then they have every right to threaten to leave immediately if they are not given what they want, and this remains honest.
Now, you may have a point with it being disloyal, but what have you done to earn their loyalty? If you or the company has done something unusual to earn their loyalty, then you may have a valid point and reason to feel wrong. But paying them an honest wage for honest labor is not a way to earn any exceptional level of loyalty.
Not to mention, how many people are without jobs? Some people would be grateful to have a job, even with NO vacation.
At the risk of sounding somewhat cavalier, the overall unemployment rate has nothing to do with my situation or my relationship with my employer. The unemployment rate in my particular region for my particular industry matters somewhat, but if we are talking skilled software developers that is relatively low. Even then, the really relevant question is how easily can the company replace me, which includes my specific domain knowledge and my skill level. It sounds like the article was written by someone who could not be easily replaced for people who could not be easily replaced.
With that said, if one of my guys did what this guy is advocating, I'd have little choice but to replace them. I have to be able to rely on my guys; I trust the hell out of them. Bailing for a month plus with little to no warning...that fractures our relationship of trust, and no relationship can succeed in that condition.