I am a 23 y.o. and have been with my company for just over 2 years. I am planning a Europe Trip for the end of July, which is typically a quite time for us.
The trip will last for 16 business days, of which I will have 12 days annual accrued by the time I leave. I need to take 4 days as LWOP.
Is this a reasonable request to put through?
request is not a big deal, but potentially expect a refusal depending on what it will cost them. If it is as you say the busy period and they have to hire an expensive resource to temporarily replace you then it will very much come down to how much they like you and want to keep you happy. Personally I would also check if you have asked before for this and if you are someone that also uses all their sick days. Then it would come down to am I willing to wear extra cost for your pleasure (for some that would be yes, others a definite no).
They mention quite time not busy time
Spending to save. It is a corporate thing.
well not sure what quite time is. I assumed that meant Quite a time (as in very busy), I suppose they could have just misspelled quiet time. For many Businesses July is actually a very hectic time.
Quite busy ?
But the savings in tax should corroborate with the Ozbargain spirit well?
Lose $1 to save $0.30. that is a deal! Going to spend $1000 so I can flog it for $300 on eBay.
……not sure if sarcasm…..
Some companies prefer their employees to not accrue too much annual leave so they don't have to pay out a large sum if they leave.
To prevent long leave periods from happening.
My company encourages (tells) us to take time off after we reach a certain amount of accrued leave. The main reason is that the more leave people have saved up the more money they have to put aside to cover this because they would need to pay everyone out if we all suddenly left.
It's generally to reduce the financial overhead because annual leave needs to be paid out when an employee leaves.
Imagine you ran a company with 40 employees who each had 4 weeks of annual leave saved up - that's a lot of money to have to keep in limbo just in case.
@Gronk: but my company takes a hardline approach.
The leave balance is included in KPI.
If one has more than 15 days in balance, it will have negative impact i KPI for the whole team.
@Bargain80: I haven't come across an employer that works it into your KPI's, but if it's a very large company then the point I made above is probably even more relevant.
If this were me I'd simply tee up a time to sit down and discuss with my manager, I'd like to hope your willingness to take the remaining days without pay would count in your favour.
The other main reason is that leave saved up in year 1 is going to be more costly when you take it the year later (or more). One old co-worker of mine started at a company when he was 18 in the mail department and pretty much saved most of his leave while he worked there. When they retrenched him 40 years later, he had over 6 months of leave that was now paid at his executive level salary…….
Everything about this comment is wrong
remind me never to work for you
You cant not offer me a job if I dont apply
16 business days is 3 weeks and 1 day, not 4 weeks. Also leave is meant to be used for holidays, theres nothing wrong with taking a holiday thats slightly more than the leave you have available.
Really? Because I'm an employer, I know a lot of employers and I went to "employer school" at a top business school.
None of us would ever behave in such a petty way. Your workforce is everything. Treat them with respect and kindness and your productivity will benefit.
@Tambani: I'd lose my best staff if I tested them with such contempt.
This is a reasonable request if you don't do it often.
How long would you give it then, for it to not appear as a 'bad sign'?
Ok boomer.
I have never taken 4 weeks break
Post GFC, lots of companies have forced their employees to take all for four weeks each year. They don't like the accrual of leave on their books because it's a liability that grows each year due to salary increases.
@bobbified: I did not consider that.
We've always been flatout year round so my assumptions is that more workers and more continuity means more productivity.
If you work for 10 years and take 2 weeks off "not every year" (so let's say every other year), then that's 30 weeks unused annual leave being held. That's a huge liability and if you think this is a good thing for the employer, then you are gravely mistaken.
The leave has to be paid out one way or another. If you don't spread it out, it will end up being a lump sum when you leave. At probably a much higher rate.
The ideal scenario is that the employee uses their 4 weeks every year.
Sorry to have to inform you that you have NOT been a good employee in this regard as you mistakenly seem to think. Your advice is opposite to what a normal employer would prefer.
The ideal scenario is that the employee uses their 4 weeks every year.
I do.
I am talking about 4 consecutive weeks.
@[Deactivated]: There is nothing wrong with 4 consecutive weeks if the business is able to plan for it. It takes a lot of people time to unwind and start to enjoy their leave, and some get worked up as going back to work approaches. So for some short stints don't give them the downtime they need.
Some people also like to travel including seeing family and it can be cheaper and more convenient to do longer visits.
Your lack of flexibility and attitude to an employee that does prefer longer breaks ultimately hurts you as you may be able to accommodate this but instead you're locking out perfectly good employees and making yourself a much less attractive employer.
@[Deactivated]: The scale of business matters. You are a small business owner, so you can't have a person off for a longer period. For a bigger company, they can easily manage this as they have more employees, and most likely to have another employee to work as a caretaker during one's absence.
Small businesses manage this risk by hiring many part-timers, so another employee can cover the hours while the other is having their time off.
yes how dare you have a life
lol, I took an 8 week holiday after ~3 months.
As long as it's discussed & agreed far enough in advance for plans to be made, OP will be fine.
As long as it's discussed & agreed far enough in advance for plans to be made
You've only worked there for 3 months. How far in advance did you ask for those 8 weeks holiday? Was it at the interview?
He advised them six months before he even applied for the job, which is why they were so relaxed about approving it..
How far in advance did you ask for those 8 weeks holiday? Was it at the interview?
I have had mates that have done this. They were planning a big trip and then happened to come on the market. At the interview they were upfront about it and they got hired, worked a bit, took a bunch of time off, came back, no-one thought less of them.
Was it at the interview?
Yes. The trip was planned before I applied for the job. I made it clear that I would rather take the holiday than the job if it came down to it.
You might be in a very precarious position or overworked company/industry to assume everyone has this level of job insecurity.
Some companies might not like it or be unable to accommodate, but it's still something you should be able to negotiate and assess, which OP is trying to do.
So as an employer even though you have to give employees 4 weeks every year, you discriminate and judge them harshly when they take what they're entitled to. Maybe you should go and live in the USA where they're likely to favour your draconian views on employee conditions.
@Mechz: Uh, no where did I say an employee shouldn't use up their leave.
Maybe the average comprehesion in the USA is better.
Fair enough, though two years in isn't such a fragile time to start asserting yourself. It can be kind of a good spot between completely useless and almost worth something, and even a good time for smart juniors to move on.
More to the point, I'd have a harder time telling a younger worker not to try and have a bit of fun if they want, especially if they are being conscientious about it. Still gotta enjoy life, and for someone who still wants to do some decent travelling, there's not enough benefit to a rigid career path to not even test for flexibility along the way. There's never going to be a good time to take a longer break anyway.
There's never going to be a good time to take a longer break anyway.
There is. I started taking longer breaks (to me, that's a full week and beyond) when I am in a position to delegate.
The break served two purpose, one to take a break and to demonstrate my ability to do more than micro manage.
Not that there was ever any danger, but remind me never to work for you.
lol I took 4 weeks after working for 3 months, was for a honeymoon lol
with my company for 8years now, same boss for all 8years lolz
I took off 20 days in my first year, 20 days in my second year and 80 days in my third year. In fact, 40 of those 80 days were with 30 days notice. I will never be fired, I can guarantee that.
Don't subscribe to the work to death policy. If you are good, you will be fine.
Sorry tshow, I'm normally on board with your views, but this one is out of date - at least in the more modern industries. Not sure what age bracket you fall into, or if you're much of a traveller, but 20-something Australians very commonly take all 4 weeks in one go without reprimand. Maybe if you're rubbish at your job it will become apparent when you're absent/return, but the apparent cardinal sin of "taking all your leave in one hit" is not a reason for termination that OP should be worried about. Save for some absolutely toxic workplaces, if you prove your value to your employer, they will want you around.
I realised. I find it very interesting.
I travel alot but never more than 2 weeks in a stretch.
The OP is going to Europe, that's 20 hours of flight time each way. You think it's reasonable to spend nearly 20+ of your leave time sitting in a seat just getting to and from your destination?
I would not travel (on my own time) to Europe for anything less than 3 weeks - and even then I'd be hesitant.
@macrocephalic: You get used to it after a while. I grew up flying economy and flying frequently. You can shove me in cargo class and ship me across the world no problems.
Just let me load up some TV shows and we're good.
I get it and kinda agree, I'd not worked anywhere that you could take more than 2 consecutive weeks for quite some time (15 years), then moved to another company where people who were with the company <2 years were taking 4-8 weeks off to travel the world or do whatever, one was approved which opened the flood gates to others wanting to do the same.
It made it quite difficult for those left behind and not only did those employees not last that long they were lower on the list for some projects and other work, who then complained they weren't getting any responsibility which in part was due to them not being around for extended periods.
Some of the leave was unpaid, I just couldn't get my head around the lengths of time people were going away for.
Different times I guess.
As I'm the head of my workplace, I am privy to the challenges specific tp my industry. As much as people disagree, in my workplace it is easy to get a sub-in for a week or two but four is practically impossible. This disrupts my business and of course I wouldn't be impressed.
I encourage time off, especially around school breaks but not four week stretches.
I see the logic in what you're saying from a pure business-driven approach, but what you're suggesting is a bit cold at a personal level.
I like to apply a common-sense/practical perspective to things. Is it fair and fairly normal for someone to request 4 weeks of time off? Yes? Then you shouldn't let that affect your views of employees. Otherwise you're just running a strict and realistically unpleasant company to work for.
@DingoBilly: As I said, using up leave is not the problem. Taking a long stretch is.
Having been both an employee and an employer, I am exposed to both perspectives. I do not think the average employee has seen both sides of the coin.
Ultimately, if I cannot run a business, I cannot maintain the employment of my staff.
@DingoBilly: "but what you're suggesting is a bit cold at a personal level"
Its very rare to find a personal level with most companies, business or Government.
They're not there to be your friends or care about you having a good time on holiday, if the way most treat their customers as a whole isn't an indication then I've got some sad news to break to you.
@91rs: Not sure this is true. In my 8 years I've always found supportive employers and seen this in friends and family too, both government and private jobs. That means taking off months at a time for sickness, 2 months leave a year, etc. Etc.
It's now my expectation but it could just be more professional/senior roles that offer it potentially?
As much as people disagree, in my workplace it is easy to get a sub-in for a week or two but four is practically impossible. This disrupts my business and of course I wouldn't be impressed.
So look carefully to see if you can plan better. Especially if you care at all about being an employer of choice.
Also no employee should be irreplaceable in your work place. If you are opening yourself up to key person risk you can do better. That person could just as easily keel over dead as ask for leave.
-101 votes
Ease the pain or see how low we can go…?
Haha. Don't really care.
I think it is serving as a poll for OP.
Negs - reasonable to request leave.
Upvotes - unreasonable to request leave.
True about being useful as a poll.
Wasn't expecting you to care about it, but it is a standout quantity of downvotes (that I can easily recall seeing, at least)
@Chandler: Yeah. I am profoundly fascinated.
People have seem to villified the comment/commenter for holding the opinion that it is not a wise career move to do the proposed.
Fair enough that many will vote purely from identity as an employee and/or being young but some good comments to be had too, ie some industries preferring long leave (I have not worked in one).
People have seem to villified the comment/commenter
vilify
speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.
Come on now. People disagree with you and they are explaining why. Name calling is pretty low, the worst thing is number of downvotes. No need to play victim.
Personally I don’t really disagree with the particular point because it would hold true in some cases. But by making it sound like a blanket rule, it comes off as though people should expect employers to be vindictive, which then makes it easier for employers to be vindictive and harder for employees to ask for what they want.
I’ve seen offices like that. You end up with people who are used to being squeezed their whole lives because they don’t know if it’s normal or not.
@crentist: I am not seeking concession so playing victim is not a phemomenon here.
Most of the responses with a reason I have acknowledged positively.
Many responses were to tell me I am a terrible boss, presumably based on the proportionately high number of responses that also ignore the context that I was talking about consecutive length of leave, not the actual total use of leave.
Ps. To work on the assumption that I am a horrible boss (maybe you've missed those comments) is to villify. If I am giving bad advise, to disagree is to tell me I am giving bad advise, perhaps even mock how bad it is.
@[Deactivated]: Seeking concession isn't a requisite for playing victim. I read it more as a deflection, brushing off the negative responses. But I didn't mean it as an attack either. I agree that you have acknowledged them well, which made this seem to stand out even more.
What I meant was that you and the people who disagree with you seemed to be having a mostly good discourse, which made this comment seem uncharacteristically dismissive, and not in spirit with your other engagement.
Though you are getting downvoted super hard, damn.
Those who didn't get that you meant consecutive weeks are dumb. But I expect enough others (including myself) are going off the impression that your comment simply comes off quite cold anyway.
Of course long breaks can create problems, but these are highly dependent on industry & company & position & individual performance. Problem is you didn't suggest that use of leave entitlements could be negotiated if and when possible, only that considering a certain way would justify punishment from the employer regardless of other factors. It hints at a boss who wouldn't consider balancing the needs of employees as well as the business.
Ok boomer
Most businesses encourage clearing of annual leave for many reasons including fatigue management. Most businesses realise that it’s better from a $$$ perspective to have lower annual leave liabilities as well.
There is nothing wrong with taking a 3 week holiday after working for 2 years. As long as everything has been communicated between OP and their manager, and that contingencies have been set up while they are away.
A bit more context is perhaps required from OP. They only have 12 days of accrued leave after working there for 2 years which means they have taken time off elsewhere. What did OP use the other leave days on?
you would make a shitty boss and never actually run a company. He can take as much leave as he wants as long as the company approves it.
never actually run a company.
and yet I do. Do you?
He can take as much leave as he wants as long as the company approves it.
And water is wet.
you must be a very crappy person to work for.
@[Deactivated]: There's no assuming here. You've pretty much stated it.
I took 2 months off for my honeymoon, 2 years into a job that lasted 15 years. And anyone who ever doubted my worth in that time quickly worked out they were mistaken.
In the end I'd accumulated 6 months of leave including long service.
I would never work for you, knowing your attitude.
@[Deactivated]: You've left little to assume by sharing your opinions on employees taking vacations.
@CocaKoala: My staff are paid above average, paid ontime, easy leave application cash bonuses, staff perks worth thousands…
…but junior staff do not get approval for 4 consecutive weeks.
If that is an auto qualifier for a horrible boss, so be it.
@[Deactivated]: Not horrible, just very traditional and not aware of millennial culture and motivations.
My staff are paid above average, paid ontime, easy leave application cash bonuses, staff perks worth thousands…
You still don't own them.
And if you think you're getting brownie points for paying on time, I'd say check your entitled attitude. As for the perks and above average pay, that's what you need to offer if you want above average talent.
You still don't own them.
???
if you think you're getting brownie points for paying on time, I'd say check your entitled attitude
Entitled attitude for paying on time. Wtf?
Ps. Entitled is applying for leave expecting the approval is a given.
Entitled attitude for paying on time. Wtf?
You are legally required to pay them on time. Your thinking that you should somehow be getting brownie points for doing so is revolting. In other words you should never have listed that as a point in your favour for being a good boss. It's expected. If someone has done the work, you literally owe them their pay, and you have agreed to make good in a particular timeframe.
Ps. Entitled is applying for leave expecting the approval is a given.
Actually annual leave is the entitlement. You don't have to give it at the time requested but you do have to provide the legislated amount of leave per year, with some allowances for deferring leave if required for running your business, and some allowances for the employee deferring their leave so long as it is by their own choice.
Honestly your attitude as a boss SUCKS. Within the limits of it not affecting the business poorly (and you should minimize that with planning) you should be looking to accommodate your staff as much as possible. Usually people with an attitude like the one you have on display don't do that then moan about how bad their employees are because they've hired people who aren't in high enough demand to ensure they aren't treated like virtual slaves.
You also seem to be absolutely fine with being out of touch with modern work practices and younger worker's expectations. Yet you clearly think you're a wonderful boss. Take a good look at how many people have down voted what you consider reasonable.
The 50s called…
That's such arrant nonsense.
SYBAU
this is one of the most neg comment I've ever come across. Noice
I imagine you can request any amount of leave-without-pay.
No-one here knows where you work, your position within that company, your work performance, other staff leave arrangements at that time (who may be covering your role), etc.
Some companies allow you to take leave in advance of accruals; that would be a better outcome for you.
they'd be mostly more than glad for nonpay
not at all, Leave without pay doesn't mean it costs the company nothing, it can often be more expensive than him working as backfill + accounting + HR can easily mean you are effectively paying far in excess of their standard wage to accommodate. obviously if he is in a roll that doesn't require hist job to be done while he is a away then sure it is relatively cheap for them.
+14
Yes very reasonable. 4 weeks leave (paid or unpaid) is hardly abnormal especially as you're off to Europe to fight the Coronavirus.
I'm sure the extra 4 days unpaid will be approved.
Hahaha, fight the coronavirus. Love it.
He'll probably cancel his trip in a few months when it spreads from Italy to the rest of Europe.
My company doesn't allowed unpaid leave, but rather I just go into negative annual leave.
I would prefer unpaid but the end result is much the same, depending on if you are negative leave when you finish up at your job.
If negative, you need to pay the amount back (same as your employer needs to pay out your annual leave if you're positive). So if you get a payrise and leave while still in negative pay, you may be slightly worse off.
Usually you just need to discuss it with your boss and figure it out.
Yes, not a big deal if you have a good relationship with your employer.
You will need to deactivate your Ozbargain account during that time however, as you are losing income, which goes against all principles.