Active Users:798 Time:18/12/2024 09:46:07 PM
They would be reasonable if you were an idiot in a nanny state type job. Tom Send a noteboard - 12/01/2014 07:28:41 PM

The vacation policy changes essentially represent an attempt to move from the flexible policies that you can expect in professional organizations where highly motivated and well compensated intelligent professionals work to a system that is more suited to the sorts of people that work at, say, McDonald's, a box store or some shitty regional office where the workers are fungible.

I understand your job to be very similar in its expectations to one of the larger law firms in the City, and I can tell you that the new policies are degradingly obnoxious. At my first firm, the partners said, "You get in at a reasonable time and you stay until everything that needs to get done is done. If you're under 30 billables a week talk to someone unless someone has told you that work will pick up shortly." That was it. If you can routinely leave work at 6:00 pm, or if things close down, the 9:00 am sharp requirement makes sense. However, if you end up working until 9:00 pm on a regular basis (or later, which I fully expect you do as an exempt employee, in labor standards parlance), or even end up finishing after midnight on occasion, the 9:00 am requirement is not just ridiculous, it's vindictive.

The vacation restrictions are stupid, as well. Considering that you probably have to get your vacation approved, the far smarter thing to do would be to assess on a case-by-case and person-by-person basis if any longer vacation were a problem.

Using half a vacation day for leaving before 2 pm, however, is pretty standard. Most people would concede that you're not putting in a full day if you leave that early.

The far smarter thing to do would be to simply say that work starts at 9:00 and people should make an effort to be in reasonably thereafter, with the key being "reasonably". That way, if you worked until 3:00 am to finish something you can come in at 10:00 or even a bit later. The other thing would be simply to say that vacation in excess of one day needs to get prior approval. That way, it doesn't matter if it's a day before your 2 days of personal days off for an unexpected death, for example. By saying "a week" they're just setting themselves up for acting like assholes when things like that happen.

So in other words, I agree with you completely. You're not a moron or a slacker working at some cubicle job in Dayton, Ohio. You're a smart, highly paid professional working in New York City, and you should be treated that way.

Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.

ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius

Ummaka qinnassa nīk!

*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Tell me if I'm overreacting or not to these vacation policy changes - 12/01/2014 04:17:28 PM 951 Views
Yes, they are reasonable. - 12/01/2014 04:42:57 PM 991 Views
They would be reasonable if you were an idiot in a nanny state type job. - 12/01/2014 07:28:41 PM 707 Views
I think a lot depends on what's going on with personnel issues. - 13/01/2014 04:26:04 AM 813 Views
You hit the nail on the head - 13/01/2014 05:39:46 PM 761 Views
Honestly, they sound pretty reasonable. *NM* - 13/01/2014 04:30:58 AM 251 Views
You're not overreacting. - 13/01/2014 03:00:02 PM 685 Views
flexibility should be a two way street - 13/01/2014 04:22:24 PM 584 Views
Yep, pretty restrictive. That just shows once again that money isn't everything - 13/01/2014 04:27:39 PM 697 Views
I wish they asked... - 13/01/2014 07:54:58 PM 639 Views
Aren't you kind of in the wrong line of work for that? *NM* - 13/01/2014 08:07:40 PM 250 Views
Well, perhaps. - 13/01/2014 05:00:46 PM 618 Views
A lot does indeed depend on the reason for the changes. - 13/01/2014 08:28:23 PM 703 Views

Reply to Message