| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2005 10:24:30 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Originally posted by Flash:
but also is required to have someone else do the work that is not being done. |
Where do you get this from? If someone is out for any reason there is nothing that says I am required to have someone else perform that person's duties. If it is something that is needed, yes, someone else would be assigned the tasks. But nothing says that if a janitor is out I am required to have his work performed by someone else. Same is true for any manager, supervisor, or production employee. I don't understand this reasoning. |
The theory would be that the person was hired to do a job that needed to be accomplished, and in their absense, that job would still need to be completed hence someone else would need to do it. If that person's job isn't important, or does't need to be done, then why hire them in the first place? |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:25:25 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
If you are being paid hourly, give yourself the extra vacation time. I used to do that by figuring out how many days of work the raise was worth and then took unpaid leave for those days. Both I and the company benefitted - they paid me less (technically) and I got my extra vacation days. |
No, I'm paid a salary. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:29:18 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Originally posted by Flash:
but also is required to have someone else do the work that is not being done. |
Where do you get this from? If someone is out for any reason there is nothing that says I am required to have someone else perform that person's duties. If it is something that is needed, yes, someone else would be assigned the tasks. But nothing says that if a janitor is out I am required to have his work performed by someone else. Same is true for any manager, supervisor, or production employee. I don't understand this reasoning. |
1. If the person is an employee, then they have job responsibilities.
2. If the employee is absent, then those responsibilities are either not being performed or are being done by someone else.
3. If the responsibilities are not being done, and the employer does not need them done, then why are they employing the employee that they do not need? |
An employee can address many things ahead of time to make up for their absence.
I am the ONLY engineer in my particular lab. There is no one else in the company that knows how to do my job. No one covers for me when I'm on vacation, I just have to communicate my plans and people have to adapt. Does that mean I cannot take vacation? Does the world stop turning if I'm out?
No.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:31:39 AM · #29 |
i worked for a small shop, but i did just thing you requested last year. it caught them off-guard, but they came back to me within a week and proposed an extra week of vacation time (which is all i asked for) and a reduced raise amount to compensate for that time.
all-in-all, it worked out great for me. of course, i quit 6 months later...hahahahaha. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:32:12 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Originally posted by Flash:
but also is required to have someone else do the work that is not being done. |
Where do you get this from? If someone is out for any reason there is nothing that says I am required to have someone else perform that person's duties. If it is something that is needed, yes, someone else would be assigned the tasks. But nothing says that if a janitor is out I am required to have his work performed by someone else. Same is true for any manager, supervisor, or production employee. I don't understand this reasoning. |
1. If the person is an employee, then they have job responsibilities.
2. If the employee is absent, then those responsibilities are either not being performed or are being done by someone else.
3. If the responsibilities are not being done, and the employer does not need them done, then why are they employing the employee that they do not need? |
An employee can address many things ahead of time to make up for their absence.
I am the ONLY engineer in my particular lab. There is no one else in the company that knows how to do my job. No one covers for me when I'm on vacation, I just have to communicate my plans and people have to adapt. Does that mean I cannot take vacation? Does the world stop turning if I'm out?
No. |
However, there is a cost to your employer that exceeds your pay while absent. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:33:51 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Flash:
However, there is a cost to your employer that exceeds your pay while absent. |
not if you do your job effectively enough that you've minimized problems that could occur and have sufficiently trained everyone around you to keep the boat afloat in your absence.
what if someone got hit by a bus? the company would make do while that indispensable person recuperates. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:34:21 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Flash:
However, there is a cost to your employer that exceeds your pay while absent. |
Not necessarily...particularly, as is often the case, if you put in a very long work week before you leave (to prepare things) and then put in a very long work week after you get back (to try and catch up). |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:37:18 AM · #33 |
Since you are a salaried employee and have been with the company for some time, you'll know when the likely slow times are for your business. I agree with the person above who suggested you have a plan for how your duties will be covered in your absence. Also, you might want to have an idea of when you'll be taking the time. I get 4+ weeks of vacation every year, but I do have to seek supervisor approval for when I get to take them. If you've thought it out your bargaining position will be stronger.
Another thought, salary is used for the basis of future compensation. If you were job-changing you'd want the salary so you can tell the next employer how much you were compensated. If you were heading toward retirement, you'd also want the higher income amount since your retirement benefits will be based on that. If next year a % raise is offered again, you'll have a lower base for the raise....just a few things to consider. On the flip side, in the US, your employer pays 1/2 of your Social Security contribution--this too, is based on salary not on vacation time--so accepting lower pay has other monetary benefits for your employer. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:37:25 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by dahkota:
If you are being paid hourly, give yourself the extra vacation time. I used to do that by figuring out how many days of work the raise was worth and then took unpaid leave for those days. Both I and the company benefitted - they paid me less (technically) and I got my extra vacation days. |
No, I'm paid a salary. |
See my above post or use this:
Salary / 52 = Week Value
Example: $20,000 / 52 = $384.62
Now take raise offered
Raise / Week Value
Example: $2000 / $384.62 = 5.1999 weeks
Knowing most employers will not allow that amount of time off in the form of a raise negotiate, 3 weeks off during slow times at work in stead of the raise
Message edited by author 2005-12-20 10:38:51. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:41:09 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Originally posted by Flash:
but also is required to have someone else do the work that is not being done. |
Where do you get this from? If someone is out for any reason there is nothing that says I am required to have someone else perform that person's duties. If it is something that is needed, yes, someone else would be assigned the tasks. But nothing says that if a janitor is out I am required to have his work performed by someone else. Same is true for any manager, supervisor, or production employee. I don't understand this reasoning. |
1. If the person is an employee, then they have job responsibilities.
2. If the employee is absent, then those responsibilities are either not being performed or are being done by someone else.
3. If the responsibilities are not being done, and the employer does not need them done, then why are they employing the employee that they do not need? |
An employee can address many things ahead of time to make up for their absence.
I am the ONLY engineer in my particular lab. There is no one else in the company that knows how to do my job. No one covers for me when I'm on vacation, I just have to communicate my plans and people have to adapt. Does that mean I cannot take vacation? Does the world stop turning if I'm out?
No. |
However, there is a cost to your employer that exceeds your pay while absent. |
What cost?
No projects get delayed. There is no work stoppage. No production facilities are getting shut down. I take care of certain things before I go, or after I get back, but my job gets done, and on time. It's called project management. Smart managers take such things as employees' vacations (as well as their own) into account when planning their projects.
If it's a true emergency, my manager has my cell number, which I gave to him with the understanding that if I am called while on vacation, that day is no longer considered vacation. Many times tho, I am miles away from a cell tower and am unreachable anyway.
Message edited by author 2005-12-20 10:44:25.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:43:58 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by Flash:
However, there is a cost to your employer that exceeds your pay while absent. |
Not necessarily...particularly, as is often the case, if you put in a very long work week before you leave (to prepare things) and then put in a very long work week after you get back (to try and catch up). |
My argument is that there are costs to an employer that exceed the wage being paid the vacationing/absent employee. If you do not understand my point, then you have not been in a supervisory capacity for an extended period of time. You argument against my argument, simply states that an employee can do the work expected during their absence, either before and/or after their absence. This is true, regarding the task(s). It does not however refute the fact that employee absence costs the employer more than the simple wages paid that absent employee.
Again, if the employee is not needed or only needed part time, then why pay them full time. The reason employees are hired full time is due to a company need. The business plan of a company includes the added costs of absent/vacationing employees. The fact that a business plan includes these costs, does not change the fact that it cots the company more than the employees wages, when one is absent. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:50:26 AM · #37 |
| Flash, you fail to see the difference between the job of an 'employee' and the job of a Manager. A Manager is hired for direction, ideas, progression and other wonderful words. These things can (and do) continue to happen in my short-term absence. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 10:54:38 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Flash:
However, there is a cost to your employer that exceeds your pay while absent. |
not if you do your job effectively enough that you've minimized problems that could occur and have sufficiently trained everyone around you to keep the boat afloat in your absence.
what if someone got hit by a bus? the company would make do while that indispensable person recuperates. |
My point has nothing to do with "indispensibility". It is simply a statement of fact that the cost (to the company) of an absent employee is greater than the amount of the wages paid that absent employee. Either in learning curve (lost productivity) of the replacement, or mistakes/oversights by the replacements, or in wait time for the regular employee to return and complete the task, or in a managers time to complete the task while the regular employee is gone, or a mulitude of other potential costs assiciated with absent employees.
Yes employees do get sick, have family emergencies, take vacation time, however the cost the the company during these events is more than the mere cost of the employees wages. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 11:05:20 AM · #39 |
Give him the money, and tell him he can use it to hire a temp worker to fill in on any days he wants off!
My experiences... My current employer has avoided the whole vacation thing this way - everyone get a bonus every 6 months (based mostly on your earnings but with a company performance and safety factors built in) and there is no such thing as 'vacation'. You just request off whatever days you want off, no limits. All days off are unpaid. If you leave you forfeit the 'bonus'. it shows on teh paystub as vaca pay. We are not salaried...
One company had a per hour amount of money that accrued and when you took vacation or time off you could get that account's balance put in your paycheck. If you quite you got that as severance pay. I liked it.
I have seen new hires get time off up front, or time off before the one-year (or 6 months) normally requred before a vacation. I don't think they got it paid though.
My wifes company re-did things a year or so ago. You get vacation (based on how long you've been there) and personal time i think they call it - holiday, sick days, personal days are all the same - accured time off. if you accumulate them you can call it a vacation i suppose.
Some place i have worked restrict when and how much vaca time you can take at one time.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2005 11:13:51 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Flash, you fail to see the difference between the job of an 'employee' and the job of a Manager. |
You are correct that I fail to see a diiference. Managers are employees, thus as employees the same arguments apply. The cost to the company when a manager is absent is more than the manager's wages. It includes lost profit potential due to the missed diligence that would have been present, had the manager been present. The fact that managers are absent, does not in any way mean that a company cannot function. It simply means that as it relates to your early posts when inquiring about an equation between wages and time off, that it is not a direct comparison. There are "other" costs associated with an absent employee/manager. Therefore a direct division of one's raise into a weekly salary, thus "x" vacation is not a direct multiplier. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 11:18:09 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Flash, you fail to see the difference between the job of an 'employee' and the job of a Manager. |
You are correct that I fail to see a diiference. Managers are employees, thus as employees the same arguments apply. The cost to the company when a manager is absent is more than the manager's wages. It includes lost profit potential due to the missed diligence that would have been present, had the manager been present. The fact that managers are absent, does not in any way mean that a company cannot function. It simply means that as it relates to your early posts when inquiring about an equation between wages and time off, that it is not a direct comparison. There are "other" costs associated with an absent employee/manager. Therefore a direct division of one's raise into a weekly salary, thus "x" vacation is not a direct multiplier. |
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that what you've stated can be the case...but often a Manager over-compensates for his vacations in the weeks leading up to and the weeks after his/her 'week off'. I do understand what you're saying but think that the practical application of it may not be quite right with most dedicated managers. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 11:22:52 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is simply a statement of fact that the cost (to the company) of an absent employee is greater than the amount of the wages paid that absent employee. |
All depends on the employee and the job. When I'm (Engineer/Manager)gone for a few days I prepare in advance and make up for it when I get back. A few people cover for me but unless an emergency comes up there is no additional cost to the company for me being gone. My work can usually wait for me and my shop knows what to do without me for a few days.
I was out sick two days last week. All required work got done on time, nothing got screwed up, no one worked overtime to cover for me. Yep, I had a pile on my desk when I got back, but no additional costs to anyone other then me working a little hard to catch back up for a few days.
When someone in my shop is out, I get a little less work done that day, but no additional costs are incurred. Vacation time and sick days are factored into my schedule. I don't plan to have everyone present every day.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2005 11:55:50 AM · #43 |
Thank you to every single person who gave their advice/opinion in this thread.
I will pursue this in the new year. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 12:13:22 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by dahkota:
If you are being paid hourly, give yourself the extra vacation time. I used to do that by figuring out how many days of work the raise was worth and then took unpaid leave for those days. Both I and the company benefitted - they paid me less (technically) and I got my extra vacation days. |
No, I'm paid a salary. |
See my above post or use this:
Salary / 52 = Week Value
Example: $20,000 / 52 = $384.62
Now take raise offered
Raise / Week Value
Example: $2000 / $384.62 = 5.1999 weeks
Knowing most employers will not allow that amount of time off in the form of a raise negotiate, 3 weeks off during slow times at work in stead of the raise |
Don't forget to add benifits, and the other stuff that goes into the "fully burdened" cost of an employee. Many people forget the "rent" on thier office, thier share of the cost of hallways, bathrooms, parking lot and other space, paper for the coppier and other office supplies, thier share of the receptionist's pay, etc.
Some companies consider the fully burdened cost to be twice the employee's salary. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 12:18:50 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
If so, did they receive an extra week of vacation for each extra week's worth of increased wages that were offered? |
Happens all the time and no it's never one to one here. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 01:55:49 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Upon offering an employee a wage increase, have they ever negotiated that the raise be forfeited and that they be granted extra weeks of vacation instead?
If so, did they receive an extra week of vacation for each extra week's worth of increased wages that were offered? |
It is bothersome to me that so many "managers" responding to this thread, feel that the cost to an employer, for an absent employee is limited to the wages alone, while I have argued that the cost is the wages plus "x". The above question Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
did they receive an extra week of vacation for each extra week's worth of increased wages that were offered? |
is asking if a one to one relationship exists between a weeks compensation and a weeks vacation. The answer is that it is not a one to one relationship. The correct formula is compensation plus "x", with "x" being the additional costs associated with an absent employee. If a person was paid $1000 per week (gross income) and received a $1000 raise, and then attempted to negotiate that $1000 raise for 1 additional weeks vacation, the employer would have every right to argue that it was not a 1 to 1 exchange, due to the additional costs incurred by the employer, during the employees absence.
If you were the owner of a photography business and had an employee/manager who managed photo shoots and oversaw assistants on location, and that manager/employee was absent (on vacation), then an additional "cost" will be incurred by you the owner, besides just the weekly compensation of the vacationing employee. You will have to oversee some of those duties yourself (meaning personal time away form other business matters) or delegate them to someone else (possible mistake/oversight), or hire a temporary employee to cover the absence (wages plus learning curve). Any employee desiring to exchange wages for additional time off, should be aware that the cost will be more than the wages themselves for the time off. In the $1000 example, it might be $1200 = an extra weeks vacation, even though the wages themselves only equal $1000. The extra $200 is the calculated cost of the absence, above the weeks wages.
If this explanation does not address the question in the original post and arguments to the contrary continue, then those arguing for a 1 to 1 relationship between wages and time off should spend a day with their companies accountants so as to gain a better understanding of the actual "costs" of doing business. I obviously cannot explain it any clearer. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 02:03:52 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is bothersome to me that so many "managers" responding to this thread, feel that the cost to an employer, for an absent employee is limited to the wages alone, while I have argued that the cost is the wages plus "x". |
A good manager leaves room in the schedule for absences and plans for vacations, thus most times there is little no impact when someone is out. I lost one of my best guys for two months. I'm not hiring anyone to replace him, I'm not borrowing someone from another area and training them. I'm asking the other 29 people in the shop to step it up a little and we'll be fine. We might get parts out on time instead of early for awhile, but no added costs.
Edit to add:
I think I see the disconnect. In a shop where you have 1 manager and 3 people, yeah, missing a person is a big deal. I live in a world with large quantities of people doing pretty much the same thing. In my world an absence does not cost more then the person's wage unless I'm short handed.
Message edited by author 2005-12-20 14:07:58. |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 02:16:16 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is bothersome to me that so many "managers" responding to this thread, feel that the cost to an employer, for an absent employee is limited to the wages alone, while I have argued that the cost is the wages plus "x". |
A good manager leaves room in the schedule for absences and plans for vacations, thus most times there is little no impact when someone is out. I lost one of my best guys for two months. I'm not hiring anyone to replace him, I'm not borrowing someone from another area and training them. I'm asking the other 29 people in the shop to step it up a little and we'll be fine. We might get parts out on time instead of early for awhile, but no added costs.
Edit to add:
I think I see the disconnect. In a shop where you have 1 manager and 3 people, yeah, missing a person is a big deal. I live in a world with large quantities of people doing pretty much the same thing. In my world an absence does not cost more then the person's wage unless I'm short handed. |
So you would be willing to allow each of those 29 employees to exchange their raise for an exact equivalent of time off, as per their current wage rate? |
|
|
|
12/20/2005 02:23:33 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Upon offering an employee a wage increase, have they ever negotiated that the raise be forfeited and that they be granted extra weeks of vacation instead?
If so, did they receive an extra week of vacation for each extra week's worth of increased wages that were offered? |
It is bothersome to me that so many "managers" responding to this thread, feel that the cost to an employer, for an absent employee is limited to the wages alone, while I have argued that the cost is the wages plus "x". The above question Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
did they receive an extra week of vacation for each extra week's worth of increased wages that were offered? |
is asking if a one to one relationship exists between a weeks compensation and a weeks vacation. The answer is that it is not a one to one relationship. The correct formula is compensation plus "x", with "x" being the additional costs associated with an absent employee. If a person was paid $1000 per week (gross income) and received a $1000 raise, and then attempted to negotiate that $1000 raise for 1 additional weeks vacation, the employer would have every right to argue that it was not a 1 to 1 exchange, due to the additional costs incurred by the employer, during the employees absence.
If you were the owner of a photography business and had an employee/manager who managed photo shoots and oversaw assistants on location, and that manager/employee was absent (on vacation), then an additional "cost" will be incurred by you the owner, besides just the weekly compensation of the vacationing employee. You will have to oversee some of those duties yourself (meaning personal time away form other business matters) or delegate them to someone else (possible mistake/oversight), or hire a temporary employee to cover the absence (wages plus learning curve). Any employee desiring to exchange wages for additional time off, should be aware that the cost will be more than the wages themselves for the time off. In the $1000 example, it might be $1200 = an extra weeks vacation, even though the wages themselves only equal $1000. The extra $200 is the calculated cost of the absence, above the weeks wages.
If this explanation does not address the question in the original post and arguments to the contrary continue, then those arguing for a 1 to 1 relationship between wages and time off should spend a day with their companies accountants so as to gain a better understanding of the actual "costs" of doing business. I obviously cannot explain it any clearer. |
Those additional costs are will occur regardless of the employees' vacation status, so what?
This thread was originally about an employee asking for additional time off as opposed to a salary increase and not HR beancounting. If the OP makes such a request, and it's accepted, I'm sure that the HR beancounters will have made their analysis in excruciating detail.
In addition to being my lab's only engineer, I'm also the supervisor. I know from experience that an employee that is allowed flexibility in their work is a lot more productive than one who is rigidly constrained.
There is some incremental cost above salary for giving additional time off or giving some other perk to a valued employee. I would bet that it pays off tenfold in productivity and certainly pales in comparison to the cost of hiring and training a replacement, not to mention the loss of experience that would walk out the door due to an inflexible work policy.
It may not make much sense to the beancounters riding their spreadsheets, but their view is often myopic and misguided anyway.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2005 02:24:09 PM · #50 |
Flash, seriously...your style of debate (be wordy, belittle, repeat) does nothing for me.
I completely understand what you've said and agree that if you're running a store and an employee leaves you need to 'cover' them while they're gone. Yes, that can cost extra money.
However, when a manager leaves a company or department or category that he/she has been managing well, things usually go along just fine without them for a week or two - especially if extra effort is put in by the manager before and after taking the vacation time.
Message edited by author 2005-12-20 14:25:06. |
|
