Business Coach David Wanounou made a bold proclamation on LinkedIn:
If you’re an employee, asking for a 3-week vacation ain’t the best idea.
Because those 3 weeks will show the company that they can manage without you.
So better ask for less.
He’s not wrong, but he’s not right either. Employees in American businesses would be wise not to ask for an extended vacation. But that should change. And you, as the boss, can make those changes, and they will benefit your business in the long run. Here’s why.
To keep reading, click here: Why You Should Let Your Employees Take Three-Week Vacations
Part of the problem that I have with this article is that it assumes all jobs involve an office like setting where the entire workforce is using computer technology but not all jobs are. Okay there’s good points brought up about having failsafes in place to prevent hacking but that should also be ongoing. Problem not addressed is the attitude of USA employers to treat their employees as a cost factor and tend not figure out how to get their employees to work efficiently and be happy with their jobs. Okay, the only reason why USA have employees in most fields, is because they can’t get those jobs done without physical bodies. So the attitude is that if they are paying you, then you should be working.
Yes, from a cost of maintaining the business, what the article covers is a common sense issue, especially using technology to never assume that your programs are safe from hacking, that’s why businesses should be using an ongoing IT evaluation for checking their system on a regular basis and not just when employees have vacation. But the attitude of limiting vacation time except for corporate individuals, using the excuse that the bottom line employees were essential for the business operations is nonsense philosophy especially when in reality the reason for limiting vacation time is a cost savings to increase the bottom line profit.
The fraud prevention issue is not just for computer based jobs. In fact, some of the classic cases that are used to illustrate the issue are not related to those kids of jobs. Like the case of someone who was skimming the top off the cash receipts. Everyone was SO impressed by her dedication. Then she fell and was out for a couple of weeks. And that’s when the organization discovered that the cash (and yes, it as literal cash) coming in was far higher than the amount that she was recording.
Or a case where a field based employee claimed to be making certain visits but then went out on unexpected leave. And that’s when the organization discovered that those visits had never happened.
There are a lot of stories like that – someone is unexpectedly out for more than a couple of days, so someone else steps in and stuff just comes crawling out of the woodwork.
Great in theory – very challenging in practice. So many employers are running on skeleton crews that allowing such a long vacation often does affect your coworkers in a negative manner especially in case of an emergency or extended medical leave of absence is needed by a coworker. Maybe it’s because I work in HR at a non-profit organization that cares for other people. but even in the best of times we don’t have “extra” staff. Not saying that a 3 week vacation wouldn’t be beneficial to some people, but we have to weigh the effects on those picking up the slack/extra hours as well.
As an aside: I worked at a bank and in a payroll position that required a certain block of time off. Personally I do much better with shorter, more frequent vacations, so I hated it.
You know why this is, though? Corporate greed. Cutting labor, limiting PTO, keeping wages suppressed and union-busting are ways to keep upper management salaries high and profits flowing to shareholders. That money sure isn’t going toward hiring and paying workers.
Also, if you do better with short vacation stints, then you do it that way. Personally, I like longer holidays where I can actually relax. I’ve only had one nearly three-week vacation in my entire working life. At one point, I was standing in a churchyard in Wales and realized I had completely forgotten I even HAD a job. The time off gave me a chance to recharge and I was raring to go when I went back to work. And it lasted for quite a long time.
Indeed – small businesses have no reason to be so greedy. If they need 5 people to operate efficiently they should hire 8 or 9 and keep them all on the payroll so they have coverage for every possibility – even if there isn’t enough work for 9 people and the product being sold would have to cost 5 times more than it does now. Living wage for all, no salary for the business owner is what I would like to see. Get that greed pounded down.
Soon we will have what we wish for – at least with small businesses. Jobs will be with the large employers who will continue to do what they want – mom and pops will be gone. Won’t that be grand?
That’s a straw man all the way.
You don’t need to have double staff to enable people to take decent amounts of time off. But, small businesses ESPECIALLY need to have some way to allow these kinds of vacations, because if they don’t they WILL wind up with major holes one way or another. Either something unexpected happens – eg someone falls, or gets sick, or a family member gets sick, or some other things, and suddenly you have an employee who is out or on much restricted schedule. Fire them, you say? Then you not only have to cover their work, you also need to do the work of finding someone to replace them. And even in an employer’s market, that takes time and resources.
The other way the companies find themselves in the hole is that people quite – sometimes with little or no notice. Guess what, as Suzanne notes, filling those holes takes time and resources, too. And if you were running with no slack and no “plan b” for when people are out, you are in an even bigger hole.
If employers don’t want to be where healthcare providers are now, they should take a lesson or two of what NOT to do.
go to ask a manager site – it is regularly suggested that companies do indeed need to be out of business if they cannot handle even the slightest ripple in staffing.
If a job can’t survive without you it’s doomed anyway. People get sick, or get new jobs, or retire. What’s the company going to do then? If they rely entirely on one person they have two options: Train someone FAST, or go under. Such fragility is not sustainable.
The idea that one must be absolutely irreplaceable in order to contribute demonstrates the internalization of a very bad business practice. From an employee perspective they should have resources they can call on when needed; from a managerial standpoint you want to avoid bottlenecks and being held hostage by an employee.