Blog: May 2021

Most of these posts were originally posted somewhere else and link to the originals. While this blog is not set up for comments, the original locations generally are, and I welcome comments there. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Employers, how many of those vacation days are real?

When you're considering a new job, one of the things you'll find out as part of the package is how much vacation (or PTO, "paid time off") the offer includes. The US doesn't do as well in this regard as some other parts of the world. In tech, you can probably expect two to three weeks of vacation days per year plus six or seven designated civil holidays. In some companies, after you've been there several years you earn more days per year. (At my current company, after five full years I started earning one extra day per year.)

Next time I consider a new job, I have to remember to ask not only how much PTO is included but how much of that is actually mine. It's not mine if the company says I get X days but that I have to allocate some of them for Christmas week "because we all need time then to be with our families". That would be patronizing and presumptuous even if Christmas were my holiday! It's not, so that makes it even worse.

It's fine if an employer says "we're closed that week for business reasons". Sometimes companies do that. But in that case, they should either grant those days (as if they were civil holidays) or reduce the PTO claims in their job ads and HR policies. I use several days per year for my holidays, ones they don't grant, plus (in non-pandemic years) actual vacations that I choose. I would like employers to tell me the number of days I really have, the number that are my choice.

When I joined my current company I was told how many PTO days I get per year. Later, they started declaring mandatory shutdowns for Christmas week. I can use my vacation days or take the days unpaid.

Retracting vacation days, which is what they do when they say I can't use them freely any more, is akin to cutting salary (as is saying "then take it unpaid if you didn't save vacation days"). Employers, be honest about that: you're reducing my compensation. Do not pretend you're doing it for my well-being, for my family time, for my holiday -- you're not. How valued am I really, if you reduce my compensation so casually?

I've always found the last week of December to be a great time to get work done; I can focus on things that keep getting pushed off or interrupted, because there are few or no meetings and other interruptions. Meanwhile, I can use those days for my holidays. Everybody wins.

Companies should actually consider giving top employees more vacation days, rather than only the tenure-based allocation. When someone consistently performs above the norm, then not only should you reward that, but you're still ahead of the norm if the person takes that time off! Employers, please start considering PTO increases as part of the mix that includes salary increases, bonuses, and assorted perks that people use inconsistently.

How sad -- the 800-pound gorilla is afraid of the little guy

Gosh, Stack Overflow thinks our little open-source project is a threat to them. I'm flattered! Also saddened.

For several years, Stack Exchange has allowed some of its sites to control some (local) ads. Communities can nominate ads that they think will be of interest to their own members, and if enough community members agree, those ads run. Mi Yodeya has ads to promote Sefaria, its own publications, and some other resources. Science sites have ads for professional and research organizations and publications. Several sites have ads that promote other related SE sites. Stack Overflow has ads for open-source projects looking for contributors.

The general philosophy is (or was) that the people building a site are the right ones to decide what to promote on that site -- they know their audience better than the company does. (Which, if you've seen some of the other ads the company runs across the network, is self-evident.1)

This week the company announced a change in qualifications for these community ads: Read more…

People in three dimensions!

As of yesterday we are fully vaccinated. We have friends coming for Shabbat lunch for the first time in more than a year. Yay! Let's see if we remember how to do this. :-)

(He's a nurse and she was high-priority for other reasons. They've been waiting for their friends to catch up on vaccines, I think.)

Brain trust: talk to me about hosted content?

I've written lots of stuff in a variety of places online -- (LJ to) Dreamwidth and Medium and SE and one-offs in handwritten HTML and (heaven help us) Twitter and probably some others. Some of it was transient, but some of it is stuff I'd like to keep available and together. Read more…

The Value of Aspirational Rules

In my part of the physical and digital world, discourse has gotten a lot more polarized in recent years. People are less likely to presume good intent and are more likely to take the worst possible view of another’s words. People are less likely to consider nuanced positions and instead take binary views: either you’re fully on my side or you’re a bad person. People are more likely to take things out of context or ignore the time and place in which something now objectionable was said.

People aren’t doing this for jollies; it happens because people are hurt, have been systematically hurt for years or decades or longer (personally or as part of a group), and want it to stop — and because fast, available, many-to-many communication has finally given people a platform to raise their voices. People want to make society safer and less hurtful — worthy goals! People want to be heard.

Owners and moderators of platforms and public spaces are now more mindful of their roles in public discourse. Many have concluded that aspirational rules like “be nice” or “treat others as you would like to be treated” or Victorian Sufi Buddha Lite don’t work. Instead, rule lists and codes of conduct grow more detailed as new ways to cause discomfort arise. Unfortunately, the authors of these tomes don’t always follow their own rules or consider how those rules can be misused.

We need to stop doing that. I don’t mean “don’t have rules”; I mean we need the aspirational, nuanced, people-oriented rules to be front and center, even though they don’t come with easy checklists. We need to use them with a dose of humanity and thoughtfulness, and we need to be willing to examine individual cases with transparency, working together with our communities. Read more…