I don't know. I agree that everyone thinks, or ought to think, it's BS. But everyone thinks, or ought to think, that open offices are BS and companies are all going for those because it saves on costs. "Unlimited" vacation is the same: in practice, I think people are going to take less vacation because there are no clear rules about what's appropriate, and "unlimited" vacation isn't accrued so it's not a payable benefit like set vacation hours. That second one is a big one. If I get fired or quit or roll over more vacation hours than my policy allows, CA requires that those hours be paid out. There's no such cost associated with "unlimited" hours.
> If I [...] roll over more vacation hours than my policy allows, CA requires that those hours be paid out.
Now I understand the real purpose of Raytheon's policy of letting people roll over all of their vacation time, but docking next year-s allocation if the total is more than 40 hours.
But isn’t CA eventually going to go after companies who are obviously just trying to circumvent payouts when it becomes clear that they block employees from taking off as much time as they want?
There are bound to be employees who want 3 months vacation and will get fired for taking it.
Maybe, but given that there’s no requirement that companies offer any vacation time, it seems unlikely to me (a non-lawyer) that a case like that would succeed. “Unlimited” is probably couched in “subject to your team and manager’s requirements” language in employment contracts.
