Thread: I don't understand the sacrifices by my bosses. Accounting help needed.

Our CEO sent out the typical Rah Rah letter to all us peons. Things are tough and we all have to sacrifice etc. Of course the leaders are going to lead the way with their sacrifices. Their example is that they will no longer be able to accumulate vacation time but have to use it every year! From the director level and above they will do this and save 3.5 million a year. OMG! "Things are tough and I am going to sacrifice and take my vacation!" I am paraphrasing him but you get my idea.

I understand that unused vacation is considered a debt. It will affect your bond rating etc. But what the hey to save 3.5 million a year. How much vacation would that take?

I am not a bookkeeper by trade and admit I don't understand this. I need some help to understand how this works and why this is a sacrifice.

Thanks

Gotta do it man.you could end up like the twinkie people

I don't get it. I work in a Government job and for the last couple of years acted as a Business Manager for two prisons, managing all the HR stuff and the ten mill budget. We had something called 'leave liability'. As you say, it's a liability that needs to be funded. Bud, on a simple term, let's say we have one employee who accrues leave worth 5 grand, well, of course that's an expense that needs to be funded. But I don't get how paying the 5k NOW is any different to paying it in two years' time.

Of course, if they (the bosses) LOSE their leave because they haven't taken it, then THAT can save the company money.

Those kinds of letters could gag a maggot. Just another way to change the books around to look a little better short term. We are all in this together rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic sort of appeal and about as charismatic.

Bob

I use to work for a company that allowed employees to accrue vacation and sick pay. At the end of one's employment with the company, the employee was paid for ALL unused sickpay and vacation pay. But in an effort to save money, they did away with that policy. I had not called out sick in over seven years and at one point, I could have had 3 day weekends for almost a year straight. They adopted a policy of "Use it or lose it" but the unintended consequence turned out that the overall rate of employees calling in sick rose dramatically, the company was not hiring, but you still had people going on vacation leaving the operation short-handed. I'll admit even I started calling in sick from time to time just to get paid what I had earned. How this saves a company money, I don't know, but maybe the company you work for had a similar policy of paying all accrued vacation pay upon termination of employment, which could in fact cost a company a ton of money if you have people not taking their earned vacations.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Of course, if they (the bosses) LOSE their leave because they haven't taken it, then THAT can save the company money.

.

No offense to those that have posted but I want to understand how the books can be cooked to show how this can be reasonable!

Liars figure and figures lie.

I don't know where that came from!

Tim

Originally Posted by 32t

.

No, actually Tim, I was being serious. If they don't take the leave there's no leave bonus to pay.

BTW, it also depends a lot I think on if the vacant positions are 'backfilled'...

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

No, actually Tim, I was being serious. If they don't take the leave there's no leave bonus to pay.

BTW, it also depends a lot I think on if the vacant positions are 'backfilled'...

I am guessing that this was perfectly understood, but the laughter was due to the presumption that upper management would actually give up the benefit

I could be wrong?

As best as I understand it:

If I take vacation today, in two weeks I'll be back and you know what, I catch up on all the work I missed out on, or would have gotten the co. to delegate my responsibility's effectively well before I left. If vacation planning is taken seriously.

Hence, I may leave but they are still getting their moneys worth out of me.

If I don't take vacation, then after say three years when I quit, they have to not only pay me my $, but pay to train someone, and then pay to have someone do my work as they train.

Bean counters have figured this all out, and there might be some truth to it - but I would say if 3.5 Mil is on the table - you either work for a big co, or your executives get paid well and have a ton oh holidays.

The most important thing in my eyes about forcing people to take vacation once a year is then they aren't so immersed that they can then begin to steal. No joke!

When you are forced to leave once a year, then someone is forced to look at what you are up to. If I ever start another company, or am assigned a team, I'll never let my people not take vacation once a year. Besides, I think everyone should... but that's just me.