Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My employer says that my vacation time costs twice as much as it is valued and I am a little confused by this.
e.g. lets say I make 10 $/hr and I take 1 hour of PTO. My employer says this costs the company 10$x2= 20 dollars. Seems to me it only should cost them 10 dollars. Are they adding more to place value on my absence. I work in a company that does not need to bring in a replacement when I am gone for vacation.
Is there not a value for workers who are rested from vacation and are thus more productive when they get back? Is my employer just trying to make it look like I am costing them more money so that I will take pity, and justify salary freezes, etc.?
If that is the value of me working there, then shouldn't I be making twice as much?
Sounds like your employer is on a power trip and wants to make you feel bad for daring to take PAID time off.
Par for course these days, when everyone is supposed to kiss butt for the opportunity to be a wage slave and be oh, SO thankful for even having a job that they will put up with douchebaggery from muckety-mucks.
If you are making widgets producing 5 per hour while getting paid $10/hour then if your company is selling them for $6 each ($30 for the ones you make) then you might be costing them $20 while taking PTO, after taking out $10 for your pay. Granted that is a way oversimplified toy example.
I'd hope you are generating more revenue than exactly your pay, or else you'd have no building, equipment, receptionist, boss, reinvestment capital, etc. plus for every $10 an employer sees their compensation is usually more because company does fica, unemployment, other bennies like healthcare etc.
I think the math is fuzzy, but I understand the sentiment.
When you are at work, you are being productive (well here is hoping). You may accomplish XYZ for the company for the loaded sum of what you are paid (loaded sum = your wage, benefits, infrastructure, etc).
When you are off of work, the company is still paying your loaded sum. The benefits have not changed, your wage has not change, and the company is still paying the infrastructure costs-- but they are not receiving any benefit at that time because you are not productive.
Niot really. Id he pays you 10 dollars a hour its lkely that he has to make about 20 dollars a our fro your labor. If you do no labot then its o him purely. But most actaully take that in to cosdieration has a cost of labor in setting their rates.He also may have to hire more poeple tha he would ned verus no time off like vaction. Basically you compensatio i cludes any benefits such as vacatio raisng your compensation above 10 dolars per hours.
Sounds like your employer is on a power trip and wants to make you feel bad for daring to take PAID time off.
Par for course these days, when everyone is supposed to kiss butt for the opportunity to be a wage slave and be oh, SO thankful for even having a job that they will put up with douchebaggery from muckety-mucks.
I think the math is fuzzy, but I understand the sentiment.
When you are at work, you are being productive (well here is hoping). You may accomplish XYZ for the company for the loaded sum of what you are paid (loaded sum = your wage, benefits, infrastructure, etc).
When you are off of work, the company is still paying your loaded sum. The benefits have not changed, your wage has not change, and the company is still paying the infrastructure costs-- but they are not receiving any benefit at that time because you are not productive.
This.
It doesn't make sense to hire someone for $10/hour that generates exactly $10/hour in revenue, you're losing money paying their total compensation and the infrastructure associated with a job.
You don't want the widget machine you pay for to be sitting idle.
It really depends on what you do. Let's say you have an accountant that makes $75,000 a year plus benefits. How much revenue is that person producing for the company? You really have to come up with some high level stuff to try and figure that out. Not only does that employee not have a direct impact on revenue (making widgets/sales/etc.), it's hard to even say they have an indirect impact on revenue (marketing/customer service/etc.).
Mine does the same thing - so whenever anyone calls to check on my salary it ends up being more than I actually make because they have some weird calculation for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
