Agreed, every people is different. There isn't the "formula for all".
I'm from Brazil and got curious about the "unlimited vacation", how it works?
I'm from Brazil and got curious about the "unlimited vacation", how it works?
The U.S. is the only advanced economy without a vacation floor. (To join the EU, 20 days is the lower limit.) Three weeks is typical for an average job (but some companies are sleazy and pool sick time and vacation under "PTO") and two for a crap job.
It's surprising how reliably you can predict the quality of a company and job based on vacation allotment. Four weeks: solid, professional, you'll be treated as an adult. Three: average, mediocre. Two: dysfunctional, run the fuck away. Subtract one week if they use that pooled bullshit ("PTO") where sick leave is deducted from vacation. It's a horrible policy, because it means people come into work sick and everyone gets sick more often, but not only is it (shockingly) legal in the US to deduct sick days from vacation, it's not all that rare.
Generally, the assumption is that you should get one week off per decade (e.g. 2-3 weeks in your 20s, 3-4 in your 30s, 4-5 in your 40s) and that, if you have less than that, you're probably too old for the job you're in (you should be further along). That's not a legal requirement. It's just the cultural expectation. If you're 50 and you're still on two weeks, you haven't succeeded at life.
(It's different for consultants, who get no "paid" vacation but charge a higher daily rate. They can generally take off when they want, and can make more than most salaried people working 100 days/year. If you can pull it off, that seems to be the way to go after 40.)
Some startups have undefined vacation policies. This can be really good (if there's a positive culture) or really terrible (if it devolves into a race-to-the-bottom dynamic). It depends. (The one company, with more than 50 people, that I worked at with "unlimited" vacation was terrible. That's not casual, of course, and it's just one data point.) Better is to set a guideline (4 weeks minimum) but allow exceptions.
In software, the more talented people (until they can become independent) solve this by working "from home" and doing a bit of working travel. Free of office distractions and interruptions, you can actually accomplish more in a 3-hour "day" than most people get done in their 8-10. The downside of WFH is that you're still expected to be available during the full 8 hours, and if people get the sense that you're getting your work done in three, then they ask why you didn't ask for more work.
A much better solution is vacation days and unlimited sick days, as well as generous work-from-home opportunities for days when you're under the weather but not too sick to work.
People who do not make such choices rarely get sick for more than the odd few of days a year. Why should they subsidize poor choices? Not being sick a lot is a reasonable and sensible professional expectation.
The alternative to to accrue leave.
Where I work, we have vacation/sick/personal leave. There are different rules for each, and vacation time accrues and you get paid upon separation.
2. It gives people an incentive to come into the office sick. The result is that half the office is ill (but showing up!) all winter. It's pretty disgusting.
If you're trying to build a polar vortex of disease, then implement a pooled PTO system. If you're trying to build a company, then don't. It's that simple. What are you trying to build?
Here's how I would set it up:
* Three weeks minimum vacation. (Investment banks have mandatory vacation and it's not a bad policy.) In tech, that wouldn't be a hard-and-set rule, but taking little vacation should be the choice that needs to be justified. Five weeks paid, anything beyond that is unpaid leave which can be taken without stigma.
* Don't come in if you're sick. It happens to all of us. If you're going to lose more than 10 days per year to health issues, talk to HR about accommodation and we'll try to make something work. If it's less than 10 days (e.g. colds and flus and stomach bugs) then just stay home.
* Don't worry about emergent personal issues. Let people know where you're going, then go. Come to work when you're ready to concentrate on work, not when you have nonsense hanging over your head.
With all that said, unlimited vacation is not that bad in a good workplace with an understanding employer and team. I work hard, and I don't feel guilty about taking time off. What's annoying is when employers hire you with the lure of "unlimited vacation" and actually plan on turning you down if you try to go above a normal amount of PTO. In that case, it's all to their advantage.
When it comes down to it, be skeptical anytime an employer says things like "unlimited vacation" or "flexible hours." Unlimited vacation can mean that they just don't have official vacation days (and can deny you time off), and flexible hours can mean hours only flex one way: up. What people often don't see is that while the 40/hr work week and standard 2 - 4 weeks of vacation seem archaic and even oppressive, having time limits can also protect you as an employee. Remove those limits, and you just have to hope your employer continues to promote healthy work habits.
That said I have only taken a few weeks of vacation in the last few years for some reason. I should take advantage of it more.