Conference 7.286::digital

This sounds good, but since someone has to PAY for the vacation I doubt if
one could ever make it fly.

Assume the absurd case where person A has just started, but makes 100K.  Their
spouse get 5 weeks vacation but only makes 10K.  Vacations for this couple cost
the company 2K (person A), plus 1K.  If they split their vacations, it would
cost 6K + .6k, for an extra 3.6K.

Obviously my case is a gross exageration, but the point of it is that this kind
of arrangement potentially would cost DEC more money, even if only a few extra
bucks.  If dec is willing to spend extra for working spouses, don't they have to
similarly compensate those who are single or whose spouses don't work at dec?

However, I think it's a real neat idea!

-mark

This brings to mind something I tried to get implemented a while back.  I never 
managed to get DEC to agree to it, but maybe it is worth trying again.

My idea is that there are lots of people (like me) who are earning vacation time
at a far higher rate than they ever use it.  Currently I have over 5 weeks
accumulated, and I expect to top out and overflow (yet again) before I take any
more vacation.  For me this is just going to waste.

But there are people in this company who could really use the vacation time,
for very valid reasons.  One of them was stated in .0, but what about the case
where one of the two people gets a trip to Europe/Australia/somewhere_neat on
DEC, the spouse wants to go along, but doesn't have the vacation time to do it.
In many cases taking the time as unpaid personal leave would make it financially
unfeasible.  Or what about the case where you want to spend more than 2 months
with your new-born child, and you have used up all of your {p/m}aternity leave?

My idea was to have me notify DEC that I wanted n hours of my vacation time
transferred to this other person.  Any arrangements (financial or otherwise)
between myself and the person receiving the vacation time are my problem, and
DEC is not involved at all.  The other person would still require their direct
supervisor to sign a vacation card, so there is no problem there.  Both of us
still get paid the same amount, so forecasting salaries is not affected.

When I proposed this, the official response was that there would be too few
people who would be willing to donate vacation time, so it is inherently unfair
to the people who want vacation time.  I guess I don't agree that there are
that few of us willing to donate vacation time, but even if true, so what?
DEC is not in the business of determining who gets it, just in the business of
adjusting a number in two employees records.

In the case stated in .0, I consider it reasonable for one of the two people
to find a friend with some vacation time to spare, come to some agreement, and
have DEC fiddle with some numbers.  

Comments?

-- Ken Moreau

    I have a secretary who's been with Digital for nigh onto 10 years and
    gets lots and lots of vacation.  She could give (sell) some of that to
    one of my technical people.  In the case of the first reply, the
    technical person could be her husband and she gives him a week every
    year or whatever.  It costs Digital a LOT (I mean a LOT) more money for
    that technical person to take vacation than it does the secretary.  I'd
    object strongly to implementing a policy like that. 
    
    					(-:	Positive Pat	:-)

    The cost of vacation time comes from the cost center who employs
    the person taking the vacation, since they pay his salary but don't
    get the benifit of his work.  If I have enough friends outside my
    cost center who give me their vacation time that I can be gone for
    12 months every year, my cost center loses me completely.  Assuming
    my cost center is better off with me than without me, all other
    things being equal, they would be cheated by this arrangement.
        John Sauter

I think some limited form of a DEC-couple combined vacation policy
could work, and be benificial to all parties involved. Like
most every other corporate policy, it could also be abused. DEC
loses alot of money on the abuse of the tuition reimbursal policy
by employee abuse as well as college abuse (knowing that most
of their students get reimbursed, they keep their tuition very high).
However, we still keep tuition reimbursal because the benefits outweigh
the abuses.

Limiting vacation time swapping to DEC couples will cut down on alot
of potential abuse, including reply .-1. If the spirit of a policy
is adhered to, DEC will lose some $$$ on some couples, but also will
gain some $$$ on others. If it posed a problem, it could be limited
to say, couples where both spouses were within some window of salaries,
or if both were in the same wage class. It could also be limited by
direct hours, say 40 hours per year; and then not limit it to DEC couples.
The reason for DEC couples, though, is that presumably it would
be for the couple to take more vacation time together, rather than one
spouse having lots of extra time, being forced to take it or lose it,
and staying at home because their spouse cannot join him/her. BTW, don't
high tech working couples in New England have above average divorce rates?
Not a panacea by any means, but a policy like this would help...

Dave

Maybe the solution for this is to abandon the measly U.S. vacation policies on
a nationwide basis through legislation implementing something similar to the
European laws.

Although the exact laws vary from country to country, there is usually at least
four weeks and up to six or more weeks per year of vacation time.  And it's not
usually based on time of service with a particular company, it's based on either
time in the workforce or on age.

So married couples usually both have plenty of vacation time to take together.

/john

    As one half of a "DEC couple", I see this as a large non-issue.
    If one spouse accumulates more vacation time than the other (which
    happens all the time) that spouse can simply take more time off
    than the other. What could be simpler?
    
    RE .6
    
    I dunno. I haven't been that successful at using up my present
    three weeks per year (I current have 5 weeks accrued). When I
    start accumulating at 4 weeks/year next January, I'll be really
    hard pressed to use it up.
    
    I guess there are worse problems to have.

In reference to restricting a policy to certain classes of DEC couples, now you
open a whole new can of worms, namely couples who live together but aren't
married.  I claim they should have all the rights legally married couples do as
well.

I don't want to even think about THAT rathole...

-mark

	Actually I find within DEC a problem (perhaps this is more New
	England puritanical belief) that it is looked upon as GOODNES
	that a person has a high accumulation of vacation hours ...
	shows that the person is a dedicated employee.  I even see 
	evidence of that in this note file .. 'I can't use up what I have
	now ! what am I going to do when I am eligible for FOUR weeks a
	year !'  Wake up and take some time off ... go walk along the
	seashore .... take in a matinee movie .... go visit your mother ...
	read a book ... relax !  Most of the industrialized world has a
	far more encomposing vacation and work week policy (usually less
	than 35 hours a week).  Don't give me your selfrighteous attitude
	thinly masked in complaints about too much vacation time (I bet
	you guys are all joggers too !)  I take my vacation time seriously !


	Chuck


	P.S. (As of last weeks paycheck I now have 197 hours stored up !!!)

RE: .5 & .9
    
    Let's take it a step further.  I'm not married and I don't live with
    another Digital employee.  One of my co-workers gets to take another
    employee's accrued vacation for himself (it happens to be his wife's).
    Why should I be penalized for NOT having a Digital SO?  If he gets
    vacation he DIDN'T earn and I'm limited to taking only vacation I DID
    earn, then, yes, I'm being penalized.  If you're going to do it for
    anyone, then it MUST be done for everyone; anything else would be
    grossly unfair and might even result in a lawsuit. 
    
    							Pat

    I'd bet a week's vacation (not really) that there are a few legal
    reasons that DEC can't even consider transferring vacation time.
    It's probably looked upon as money (counted in hours), so in effect
    you would be transferring a chunk of salary from one person to another.
    
    When you get vacation time you also get taxed on that time just
    like regular work time.  What a payroll and possibly legal mess
    that could lead to.
                                                 
    I agree that a spouse-only policy would be unfair and if they openned
    it up to everyone, what a black market fiasco that would lead to!!
    Imagine, buying vacation time from someone.  
    
    I think it would be easier to switch identities.  How about at vacation
    time we wear masks.  Then we could switch jobs with people, thereby
    moving vacation time around.  "Is Harry on vacation, or is it
    Haloween?"

    perhaps I see the glimmer of a "solution" in the idea of buying
    vacation time?
    
    It is possible now for the SO with less vacation time to take unpaid
    leave (I believe). Now to solve this problem I would suggest allowing
    the SO with more time to trade excess vacation time for cash (at
    the rate of 1/2920 of annual salary per hour traded). Hence by "selling
    back" enough vacation to make up the money lost by your SO in taking
    unpaid leave, you would have an equitable solution.
    
    Further since no one is taking PAID leave they haven't earned it
    is not discriminatory against single employees.
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    (I used to work for a shipping firm were cashing in leave like this
    was common: it was a nice solution to the problem of working like
    a dog all year and not being able to find time to take the leave
    entitlement - rather than carry it over to next year you cashed
    it in to form a nice bonus to buy Christmas presents with).

    I guess what this discussion points out is that it behooves us to
    take vacations before the maximum vacation hours are accumulated,
    thus giving hard-earned dollars (or whatever currency you get paid
    in) back to Digital.  The policy is apparently set up to motivate
    us to take a vacation now and then, rather than taking the money
    and keep on working until we burn out.
    
    re .13:  Small nit on the arithmetic.  The hourly rate is 1/2080
    of the annualized rate.
    
  --Simon
    

Sorry for the late reply, but I was having so much fun working that I forgot
to take some time to read NOTES. (only slightly :-))

Re: .3, .4

	You mentioned that people could buy/borrow/whatever lots of time and 
	take off for significant portions of the year, thereby depriving their
	groups of the benefit of their presence.  Since I do assume that most
	people are of more benefit to their groups when they are present than
	when they are on vacation (certainly this is true of all NOTErs :-))
	than your point is correct about hurting their groups.  But this does
	not account for 3 points:

	1. Those of us who have accumulated (via currently acceptable means)
	   gobs of vacation time.  Wouldn't I be hurting my group if I took
	   off 5 weeks in one shot?

	2. DEC will be gaining a benefit from the hours which overflow.

	   It seems to me that no one is taking vacation time which has not
	   been earned, it just doesn't happen to be the same person taking
	   it as the one who earned it.  Our salaries are not *THAT* different
	   that it would not balance out corporate-wide.

	3. Finally, in all cases your manager must approve any vacation time
	   which you wish to take, however you have acquired the hours.  The
	   abuse you point out (a person taking 12 months of vacation) would 
	   be trivial to stop.


RE: .10

	I didn't mean to come off as self-righteous (but yes, for your 
	information, I do run 2 - 3 miles every morning).

	But I don't intend to ridicule you for taking your vacation and 
	spending time doing what you enjoy.  But I am taking my time and
	doing the thing that I enjoy.  Its just in my case DEC insists on
	calling it work and paying me for it (and giving me vacation time,
	which got us onto this entire discussion).  To me the attitude of
	"Work allows me to accumulate money and vacation time.  Only on
	vacation can I indulge in activities which are pleasurable, as 
	opposed to work which is not pleasurable", is something I don't 
	understand at all.  I love my job, and if I didn't do this for 
	work, I would do it for a hobby.



RE: .11

	My suggestion would allow anyone to transfer to anyone, not just
	spouse -> spouse.


RE: .12

	I don't understand your objection to transferring "a chunk of salary"
	from one employee to another?  If a person (who happens to be another
	DECcie) gives me something of value (a car, a motorcycle, a chunk of
	vacation time which I desperately want), why can't I give them a
	chunk of my salary, whatever form it happens to be in (money, stock,
	a chunk of vacation time)?  Are you telling me that I can't give 
	money to another DECcie, but only to non-DECcies?


RE: .13

	I originally proposed trading vacation time for cash.  The response
	I got was that it would mess up salary forecasting, because CC managers
	could not predict how much salary a given person would need to be paid
	for a given year.  For example, if I earn $10k/year, this is (roughly,
	for illustration purposes) $200/week.  If I take my normal vacation
	time, I get paid $10k.  If I trade in 4 weeks of vacation time for
	cash and continue to work for those 4 weeks, I get paid $10.8K.  


-- Ken Moreau

    I won't go into the details, but I used to pull off something akin
    to this a number of years ago. My manager approved of the action,
    which involved actually getting paid for a week of vaction that
    I worked. The time it got messed up, I tried to get personnel to
    change the policy. All that they did was clarify the policy in the
    manual. Basically, I was told "You can't do that because that is
    receiving 53 weeks of compensation for 52 weeks work".
    
    Bob Mc
    

    
    
    I worked for KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL CORP. in Calif. in the
    late sixties and they had a 3 shift 365 day a year operation. Vactions
    were scheduled at least three months in advance through negotiation
    with the shift suprvisor and plant manager so that coverage was
    garaunteed. When a person had accrued up to the maximum equivalent
    of two full years of vacation time, ie. 6 weeks tot. at 3 weeks
    per year, the employee was offered the option of "selling" the equivalent
    of one years vacation back to the company at the salary the were
    earning in the first year of accrual annd continute working or they
    could take the time off. if neither choice was made before the end
    of the fiscal year they lost one years vaction. The bottom line
    was that you could get two checks come payday, one for a regular
    weeks wages and one for three weeks vacation pay at your last year
    rate of pay. (I did this twice) or you could take your vacation
    or you could donate three weeks pay to the corporate profit margin.
    There was no trading of hours between employees.
    
    It all seemed to work very well and no one complained.

One of the problems I think people have is working TOO much. It just ain't 
healthy!  I have a friend who works at the Travelers.  Their policy is that
you can accrue up to 2 months of vacation time regardless of what your current
rate of vacation is.  HOWEVER, you must take 2 weeks of vacation each year so
you can't really accrue anything until you've been there for 5 years.

A while ago in DEC, my manager ordered someone to take a weeks vacation. When
that person replied that he'd spend it "playing" in the lab he was told not to
set foot in the premises. 

How is taking a couple of weeks off a year different that any other type of 
preventative medicine?  If people are allow to trade or get cash for their
vacations, they'll NEVER take any time off and then one day a few neurons will
short circuit and that person will be on permanent vacation...

-mark

RE: .18

>One of the problems I think people have is working TOO much. It just ain't 
>healthy!  I have a friend who works at the Travelers.  Their policy is that
>you can accrue up to 2 months of vacation time regardless of what your current
>rate of vacation is.  HOWEVER, you must take 2 weeks of vacation each year so
>you can't really accrue anything until you've been there for 5 years.

I can understand this for the Travelers, as well as most institutions which
have handling money as the primary function of their business (ie, banks,
insurance companies, accounting firms, etc).  The reason is to detect and
stop fraud, under the theory that if you are pulling something shady, you
will not be able to do your fudging of the books when you are not there, so
there is a better chance of detecting what you are doing.

But I do not understand, and radically disagree with, the concept that everyone
*MUST* take a vacation.  Vacations are for the purpose of rest, relaxation,
recharging of the mental and physical batteries, and doing enjoyable things
with friends and/or family.  Have I missed a reason?  But I love my job, and
find that weekends and the normal 10 company holidays / year are plenty for me 
to do those things.

A quote I found by Isaac Asimov might be appropriate here.  This puts it better
than I ever could:  (copied without permission from his column in IASFM, all of
the *EMPHASIS* was in italics in the original text)

	So in the end, they all say "Well, you're a workaholic!"

	Why?  If I loved to play golf or tennis and did so every chance I
	got, I would be considered a good sport and a very loyal American.
	If I had a wood-working shop in my basement and amused myself in
	every idle hour turning out gadgets and furniture for the house, I
	would get medals.

	But because what I like to do is *PAID FOR*, I'm a workaholic.

	If I typed and typed and typed and *DIDN'T* get paid for it, then it
	would be just a hobby; and that would be all right no matter how much
	I worked at it, provided I also had some job which earned me a living
	and which I hated and did as skimpily and as sloppily as I could.  
	Then I would be a worthy human being whom it would be an honor to know.

	(I'm sorry if I sound a little bitter, but I *HATE* being called a
	workaholic or being descriped as "compulsive".)


-- Ken Moreau

    Then again, most 'preventive medicine' is not forced upon individuals
    except in cases of obvious extremity.  To be specific, the individual
    (rather than the submittor of the previous response) is left to
    decide whether he/she is working 'too much' up to the point where
    a 'problem' actually surfaces in the work.
    
    I heartily endorse this approach:  it's bad enough for the Feds
    to involve themselves in areas that are none of their business
    "for my own good", and I'd prefer that my employer not emulate
    them.
    		- Bill
    

    (Whoops - Ken slipped another one in there.  I was referring to
     .18.)
    		- Bill
    

    
    One of the advantages of getting managers to take vacation is that
    they generally delegate authority to one of their direct reports,
    giving that individual an opportunity to grow/develop.
    
    Ray

Isn't it the alcoholic who says "I don't have a drinking problem".

having fun being controversial,
-mark

RE: .23

> Isn't it the alcoholic who says "I don't have a drinking problem".

True, but that doesn't mean that all people who say they don't have a drinking
problem are alcoholics...

-- Ken Moreau

    Some of us *need* to accumulate vacation time.  You can't make a
    10K mile trip over a weekend.  Unfortunately one can accumulate
    only upto two years vacation at a time.  This means if you are in
    digital for less than five years, you get maximum of 4 weeks.
    
    - Vikas

    Vikas, you do mean 2 Times not Years, don't you ?

    He means (I think, without reading his mind) that you can accumulate
    the amount of vacation you will earn in a 2-year period. That means
    you can accumulate up to 4 weeks vacation if you have less than 5
    years with DEC, 6 weeks if you have between 5 and 10 years with DEC, 
    etc.

    -bs

    RE: .27, .26
    
    Yes, I could have been little more clear on it but I guess you did
    understand it.
    
    - Vikas

    	Just to emphasise different national attitudes, here DEC has
    to be able to prove that I have taken 2 *consecutive* weeks at least
    every year. Otherwise they are liable to be prosecuted. And I was
    told that if I book holiday, and then appear on company premises
    I am not insured for industrial accidents (getting my finger stuck
    in the keyboard). Neither the employee nor the company has much
    incentive to cheat. Most workers in France take a solid month off
    during the summer.
    
    	Also, no holiday can be carried more than 6 months into the
    next year. You *must* take your 2 consecutive weeks, and any more
    that you do not take just gets lost.

    Let the spouse with 4 wks take 4 wks and the spouse with 2wks take
    2wks plus a 2wk unpaid "sabatical".  Seems fair to everyone, and
    I know of analogous cases where that has been done.
    
    	Rick
    

    I have 2 weeks and my spouse has 5. 
    1. We can't afford for me not to get paid three weeks of the year
    2. I don't think my boss would be very happy about the idea either

    	Some companies give an extra weeks pay after 5 years so you
    will have the extra money to spend on the vacation.