I have some issues with how public employees are compensated, but in the abstract this does not strike me as particularly unreasonable.
A contract negotiated between California Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration and the politically powerful prison guards’ union could prove costly to taxpayers because it lets guards bank unlimited vacation time that must be paid out when they retire, a legislative analyst said Tuesday.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office said the average correctional officer already has nearly 19 weeks of accumulated leave time, currently valued at $600 million. Adding more time will cost the state in the long run, said fiscal and policy analyst Nick Schroeder, though he couldn’t say how soon or how much.
By and large, I don’t think that leave time should be capped for anybody. I’ve worked at places that re-set everything to 0 at the end of the year. This has a couple of effects, one detrimental to the company and one helpful to it. Detrimentally, one employer did a lot of business in December in order to accommodate new laws to take effect in January, and it wasn’t good for people to take time off in December (meanwhile, January and February were usually slow months). But they turned this to their advantage because they would simply deny vacation time. You can’t have everybody out at the busiest time of the year, after all. Of course, the end result was that those that were the best forward thinkers and had the seniority would be the ones to request and get the time off. So during the most important time of the year, you had the new people and the people who didn’t think ahead.
The logistical problems at my former job are only a part of the story. The thing is, unless you’re willing to guarantee time off when asked, it’s simply not fair to limit accrued time off. Either their presence is important or it is not. If it’s importance, and you don’t want the headaches of having to pay them for a year after they leave the company, then pay them at the end of the year for any accrued time they didn’t utilize. Or if they’re not that important, force them to take the time. Instead, you have a problem like this:
“It’s virtually impossible for those employees to get time off,” she said. “They’re in this catch-22 where they can’t use the time off they have, so it’s become impossible for them to not exceed the cap.”
That being said, this is part of the problem:
The contract gives guards more than eight weeks off work annually, including the unpaid leave, making it more likely they will bank time to be paid out on retirement, according to the legislative analysis.
They shouldn’t have that kind of time if they can’t use it. The money should be rolled up into their salary. Of course, if the money is there. Which, in California, it isn’t. Now really isn’t the time to be asking for new benefits.
The problems:
- If you institute a system whereby one year you shift it and declare that “all unused leave will expire at the end of year X”, you cause an immediate rash of employees taking time like mad to burn it up.
- In a situation like prisons (or any other place with minimal staffing requirements) you then have more people asking for time off simultaneously than can be handled.
- If you promised a certain amount, then retroactively take it away, that’s lawsuits right there.
At SoTech, we get the administration every couple years talking about switching from the current system (where we get 8 hours of sick leave per month and X hours per month based on seniority in paid vacation time) to one where we would accrue roughly 12 “flex hours” per month, no mention of seniority and on a “this is how much you get and that’s it” schedule.
The problem there is, planning your available time becomes a nightmare for newer employees (come down with the flu? There went a summer visit to your parents!) and older employees (generally, someone who’s got 10+ years there has maxed out their rollover-able time and would have to take a full month or more off in order to get down to under the new “flextime” rollover caps) alike.
And that doesn’t even begin to mention that the last time they threatened it, it was with three months in the fiscal year applicable immediately - and they were talking about simply “expiring”, aka STEALING, all the accrued hours that couldn’t be rolled over even if supervisors were denying the vacation time applied for!
Comment by web — April 29, 2011 @ 3:11 pm
California has fallen into tragedy of the commons mode, where if the other guy increases the cattle he grazes on the common land, you lose if you don’t do the same.
People are not really interested in maintaining the commons so that it can serve for all.
Comment by Maria — April 29, 2011 @ 4:29 pm
Gotta agree with you on most points here. Also, “unlimited rollover” versus “no rollover” is a false dichotomy: what is wrong with just limiting rollover to one or two weeks? Nothing–except it prevents companies from stealing that time. For example, we’ve had people put in for vacation months ahead, only to have it denied at the last minute because of “production requirements”. And it usually happens in December, when it’s too late to reschedule.
Comment by Kirk — April 29, 2011 @ 5:22 pm
One good thing about working in commissioned sales is that I don’t have to worry about scheduling vacation time. I can take time off any time I want. Of course, I also don’t get paid …
Comment by Peter — April 29, 2011 @ 6:14 pm
My employer grants 30 paid vacation days per year, regardless of salary. Presently, we are only allowed to carry 75 days into the new fiscal year (beginning each 1 October), although accumulated vacation time is paid out when we separate or retire.
I can think of two reasons for the 75 day limit.
1. The leave typically costs the employer more later than it does earlier. For instance, I now make about 5x what I did when I started. (COLAs account for part of that, but not all.)
2. The benefit to the employer of paid leave is that regular vacations make us better, more energetic and focused employees. An employee who accummulates, say, two years of leave taken at his retirement subverts this intent.
However, there is some institutional pressure on our line supervisors to make sure their subordinates don’t lose leave. That may not be true everywhere.
Comment by ? — April 30, 2011 @ 5:00 am
Especially in the financial field, many employers require employees to take specified amounts of time off on a regular basis. Two weeks in a row each year is not an uncommon requirement. The idea is that employees who might be running embezzlement scams cannot be away from work for any length of time without risking discovery.
Comment by Peter — April 30, 2011 @ 7:24 am
Web, that about sums it up.
The problem there is, planning your available time becomes a nightmare for newer employees (come down with the flu? There went a summer visit to your parents!)
Welcome to the private sector. This is, more or less, how it has worked at just about every job I’ve ever had. HOWEVER, by and large, employers have been great about allowing me to take unpaid time off if paid time off has not yet been accrued. Or alternately, if I’m taking a day off, working extra the remainder of the week to try to at least close that gap.
Incidentally, in some ways we still have it quite good. It’s a gift from the 90’s (along with more casual dress work environments) that keeps on giving. Back in the early nineties, it was not uncommon for new employees not to get any vacation days for their first year. That’s almost never the case anymore (except at Bregna).
Comment by trumwill — April 30, 2011 @ 10:24 pm
Gotta agree with you on most points here. Also, “unlimited rollover” versus “no rollover” is a false dichotomy: what is wrong with just limiting rollover to one or two weeks?
In some ways that’s just kicking the can down the road. If you give someone three weeks off a year but only actually grant one week or so a year, you still run into people having too much vacation time. The prison guard union says that right now vacation is being denied and that’s without caps. With caps, there is all the more incentive to deny vacation time.
Comment by trumwill — April 30, 2011 @ 10:26 pm
Phi,
In my mind, if you’re going to have caps, you need to pay people for “lost” time. Good point about salary adjustments. A reason, perhaps, to simply pay employees at the end of the year for accrued-but-unused vacation time.
Comment by trumwill — April 30, 2011 @ 10:28 pm
The idea is that employees who might be running embezzlement scams cannot be away from work for any length of time without risking discovery.
I think I’ve heard that before (maybe from you?). At one job I had, it was a good thing that they forced an employee to take a vacation. It turned out that everything flowed so much more smoothly when he was gone and everyone enjoyed the job atmosphere so much, that he was let go shortly thereafter. Nobody realized how toxic he was until he was gone.
Comment by trumwill — April 30, 2011 @ 10:30 pm
A related thought: it would be nice if more employers just gave people the dollar value of their benefits, instead of gearing the benefits to particular preferences/needs (e.g. time off, med care, child care etc), so people can allocate it however works best for them
Comment by Escapist — May 1, 2011 @ 10:44 pm
“At one job I had, it was a good thing that they forced an employee to take a vacation. It turned out that everything flowed so much more smoothly when he was gone and everyone enjoyed the job atmosphere so much, that he was let go shortly thereafter. Nobody realized how toxic he was until he was gone.”
I’m on disability for the next 2-3 weeks due to an operation. I hope they don’t find out the same thing about me!
Comment by Kirk — May 2, 2011 @ 8:20 am
Politicians love to play kick the can. They have no problems promising public employees a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, since they won’t be in office when the bill comes due. Vacation should be taken in the fiscal year it is given. Use it or lose it. If it is requested more than three months before the end of the fiscal year and it is denied, then it should be paid at the end of the fiscal year.
As for sick time, I would probably allow an employee to bank up to 20 days worth of sick time, in case of a major illness. Anything beyond that should be lost. Sick time is meant for sickness, not for a pay day. By giving a cash incentive for not taking sick days, you are encouraging your employees to come to work sick, which NO ONE appreciates. This isnt elementary school; no one cares about your perfect attendance.
Comment by Mike Hunt — May 3, 2011 @ 4:34 am
Escapist, I like “cafeteria plans” where you can pick various benefits based on what your needs are.
Mike, that’s one of the big objections I have with public pensions. It allows one officeholder to gain support by making promises on behalf of a future officeholder. The federal government has a good approach to sick time, though, where you either use it or you can donate it to someone else.
Comment by trumwill — May 3, 2011 @ 3:58 pm