Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Vacation - Company Policy

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I too have been watching this thread with interest.  When I was an employee,
I always wanted more time off to maintain a better balance in my life.  As
an employer, I have tried to keep this in mind, though as many have
expressed being an owner it is frequently more difficult to find personal
time, not less.  Americans are simply the worst when it comes to vacation
and personal time.

I truly love engineering.  Unfortunately the nature of our business does not
lend itself to a consistent well balanced work week.  The hours and
pressures of projects and deadlines take their toll. The desire to enjoy
more free time must be balanced against the economic realities of the
associated costs.  It is unrealistic to say "look at Europe, they get 6
weeks off" without looking at the differences in all the other areas of
compensation and socio-economic systems.

Our solution to date has been to provide two weeks of paid vacation for the
first 5 years, and 3 weeks for the next 5, 4 weeks after ten (we have not
been around for ten years, so this is not a reality yet).  We combine this
with an additional "non-vacation" paid week off for Christmas and New Years.

Paul Feather
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zatloukal, Brian J." <ZatloukalBJ(--nospam--at)bv.com>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:52 PM
Subject: RE: Vacation - Company Policy


> I've been watching this thread with some interest as I'm one of the
younger
> generation, I've been in the workforce for about 2 years now.  I've had
this
> discussion with a fair number of people in my office and most of us agree
> that we'd like to see more time off, not necessarily to go climb with our
> college buddies or whatever else, but more as a time to refresh ourselves.
> Starting out with 2 weeks, and gaining an extra day in the 5th -10 year
> seems a little light to me.  I turn your attention to Europe, the standard
> is about 6 weeks, with some firms stating that you have to take a block of
3
> or 4 weeks at one time.  All in the interest of refreshing the employee so
> that when they're at work, they're at their best and not stressed as much.
>
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Polhemus [SMTP:bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:43 PM
> > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > Subject: RE: Vacation - Company Policy
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Fisher [mailto:dfisher(--nospam--at)fplushse.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 1:20 PM
> > > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > Subject: RE: Vacation - Company Policy
> > >
> > >
> > > Gentlemen:
> > >
> > > As a firm owner (20 people), you be surprised how big an issue
vacation
> > > benefits
> > > Are to new grads!
> > >
> > > I think I offer a very nice package of compensation and benefits in a
> > > relaxed work environment.
> > >
> > > I had one potential employee quite literally agonize over the 2
> > > weeks (that
> > > we offer to new grads)
> > > vs. 3 weeks that the ABC Company (300 employees) offers.
> > >
> > > Never mind that I was paying more and offered (I think) better
> > > projects and
> > > potential for advancement.
> >
> > I do agree that the "younger generation" seems to love to play. That is
> > the
> > reason they want the time off.
> >
> > Now, can I really blame them in all honesty, since one of the primary
> > reasons I went to work for myself was so that I could order my own time?
> > No,
> > I can't.
> >
> > Times change, and so do the imperatives of the workforce.
> >
> > People don't get married much anymore, for example. What do they care
> > about
> > your splendiferous "family-oriented" benefits like comprehensive
> > health-care
> > coverage and family sick leave? No, they want to know if they will have
> > sufficient down-time available to them during the year to go climb Mt.
> > McKinley with a bunch of their college buddies (that was one of the
> > situations I had with a new hire a couple of years ago).
> >
> > Anyway, you gotta go with the flow, if you want to get people to work
for
> > you.
> >
> > William L. Polhemus, Jr., P.E.
> > Polhemus Engineering Company
> > Katy, Texas
> > Phone 281-492-2251
> > Fax 281-492-8203
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> > *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
>
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
>


* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org