Why is paid time off so hard to negotiate?
September 28, 2012 9:04 AM Subscribe
What is the purpose of rigid paid-time off policies?
I recently had this sort of discussion with many recruiters:
Recruiter: Because of [your good qualifications] I can get you 20 days paid time off but, at this company, even people with [even better qualifications] don't get 25 days off so 20 days is the limit.
I understand financial remuneration being based on what an employee is perceived as bringing in to the company. I understand that some personality types need a corner office in order to fulfill their vision of themselves. What I don't understand is
I'm not talking here about customer facing or support position where presence or absence on a shift really matters.
Why, if you are of greater importance to your company you should be required to be there less time, (surely the opposite would make more sense?)
I understand that companies employ people because they need them to be there, but I do not understand the link to status.
Why, when I ask for more vacation than they want to provide, do they not give a counter-offer of the vacation I want, but less pay? They are slightly aghast when I ask fro more vacation than is on their books.
This sounds like I am just complaining, and to a certain extent I am, but I am wondering what the thinking, or logistics are behind this. Is it really as small-minded as it appears or is there some solid reasoning behind it? e.g. does it have some link to statute or tax benefits?
I understand paying someone more if they bring in more money but I don't see the link between status and time off.
In this area, paid time off varies from about 10 days at some companies to about 30 at others.