無限假期 = 更少休假

Whenever I get an email from LinkedIn telling me about all the new jobs I could apply for, I usually click delete. But last week, desperate to put off filling in a long tax form, I started trawling through the site’s latest job openings, and discovered something disturbing. One of the most annoying fads to come out of Silicon Valley in the past few years — the unlimited vacation policy — has spread.

每當(dāng)我收到領(lǐng)英(LinkedIn)發(fā)來的電郵，告訴我所有我可以申請的新工作時，我通常都會點擊刪除。但最近，填寫冗長的稅表讓我不勝其煩，便開始在領(lǐng)英網(wǎng)站上瀏覽最新的職位空缺，從中發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些令人不安的現(xiàn)象。過去幾年在硅谷流行的最讓人惱火的風(fēng)尚之一——無限年假政策——已經(jīng)蔓延開來。

It does not seem that long ago that boundless time off was a novelty promised by the likes of Netflix, LinkedIn itself and Virgin’s Richard Branson, who said he got the idea from Netflix. Now it is being offered by law firms in London, loan companies in Latvia, recruiters in Berlin and electronics outfits in Taipei. “Work hard and take time off when you need it,” chirped a typical advert I spotted from Taiwan’s Tomofun, a company that makes a camera for watching housebound pets from your desk.

Netflix、領(lǐng)英本身和維珍集團(tuán)(Virgin)等企業(yè)向員工提供無限年假，似乎還是不久前發(fā)生的新鮮事;維珍的創(chuàng)始人理查德•布蘭森(Richard Branson)說，他是借鑒了Netflix的做法?，F(xiàn)如今，倫敦的律所，拉脫維亞的貸款公司，柏林的人力資源公司，甚至是臺北的電子產(chǎn)品生產(chǎn)商都開始提供無限年假。“工作時努力工作，需要休假時就休假，”這是臺灣友愉公司(Tomofun)的一句很具代表性的廣告語。該公司的攝像機(jī)產(chǎn)品讓寵物主人通過手機(jī)上的APP，在辦公室里看到家中寵物的動態(tài)。

The contagion is no real surprise. It is hard to think of another work perk that promises so much and delivers so little — to workers. It is a different story for companies. A big firm that ditches fixed paid leave for open vacations can wipe millions of dollars worth of unused leave liabilities from its books that would otherwise be paid to departing employees. At the same time, it can safely offer bottomless holidays knowing most employees will never take them, especially in the US, the only major advanced economy in the world that does not guarantee workers paid vacation time.

無限年假蔓延并不真的讓人意外。很難再想到一種給員工畫一張大餅，最終兌現(xiàn)卻很少的工作福利了。對公司而言，這完全是另一回事。一家大企業(yè)如果放棄固定帶薪假期，轉(zhuǎn)而實施無限年假，就可以從賬面上抹去數(shù)百萬美元的未用年假負(fù)債。如果實行固定帶薪休假制度，就必須在員工離職時把未用年假折算成一筆款項，支付給相關(guān)員工。與此同時，公司可以放心地提供無限年假，因為他們知道，多數(shù)員工是永遠(yuǎn)不會使用這項福利的。這一招在美國尤其好用，因為該國是全球唯一不保證向員工提供帶薪休假的主要發(fā)達(dá)經(jīng)濟(jì)體。

American workers took an average of 16.8 vacation days last year, according to one report I read recently, and often fail to use up all their leave, largely because they “fear returning to a mountain of work”. In Europe, where workers are guaranteed at least four weeks’ paid leave, the thought of this American import creeping into more and more offices is awful.

據(jù)我最近看到的一份報告，美國雇員去年平均休假16.8天，且經(jīng)常無法休完所有的年假，主要是因為擔(dān)心休假回來后面對“堆成山”的工作。在歐洲，所有雇員都保證享有至少四周的帶薪假期，一想到這種從美國輸入的新做法正在向越來越多的公司滲透，就讓人不寒而栗。

I can think of one or two people who would charge off for six weeks in Goa if they could. But I know more who would feel too pressured to try it, especially if they had to justify time off that was once ordained. Sure enough, evidence is already rolling in showing that people end up taking fewer days off at companies that have abandoned firm rules on holidays in favour of open schemes.

在我認(rèn)識的人當(dāng)中，我能想得到有一、兩個人會抓住機(jī)會到印度果亞(Goa)休假六周。但我知道，多數(shù)人會感到壓力太大而不敢嘗試，尤其是在他們不得不為過去明文規(guī)定的假期找理由的情況下。果然，已經(jīng)不斷有證據(jù)顯示，在放棄明確的帶薪年假規(guī)則、轉(zhuǎn)而采用無限年假政策的公司，員工休假天數(shù)更少了。

After speaking to several people last week who work for US companies with unlimited vacations, I can see why. Most worked at tech start-ups and were happy enough with the policy. But the story that sticks in my mind came from a woman who was initially thrilled to be able to take two weeks off for her honeymoon this year.

前一陣子，在與幾位在實行無限年假政策的美國公司工作的員工交談后，我明白了其中的原因。多數(shù)人在科技初創(chuàng)公司工作，他們對這項政策還算滿意。但一位女員工的故事深深地印在我的腦海里。最初，她為今年能休兩周假度蜜月感到振奮。

The trouble was, she had been invited to a wedding abroad early next year and did not think she could go because she felt “too nervous” about asking for another week off. So much for unlimited leave.

麻煩的是，她又接到邀請，明年初到海外參加一個婚禮，她認(rèn)為她去不了，因為她覺得“太緊張”，張不開口再請一周假。無限年假不過如此。

The interesting thing is that she was thinking of switching jobs and did not want to go back to a job with the traditional two weeks of paid vacation a year.

有意思的是，正在考慮換工作的她，不愿回到傳統(tǒng)的提供兩周帶薪年假的公司。

That underlines something that I had not thought about before: some companies are doing better at using open holiday schemes to make their workers less exhausted, happier and potentially more productive. But they probably have to be run by people like Aron Ain, chief executive of the Kronos management software group. He decided to introduce open vacations at the beginning of 2016, after struggling to recruit workers. But he did not do it willy-nilly, as he explains in this month’s Harvard Business Review.

這凸顯出一些我之前沒有想到的問題：有些公司在使用無限年假方面做得更好，他們借此給員工減壓，讓他們更加身心愉悅地工作，潛在提高工作成效。但這些公司的經(jīng)營者很可能要像管理軟件提供商Kronos的首席執(zhí)行官艾倫•艾因(Aron Ain)一樣。在遭遇了招聘人才方面的困難后，艾因于2016年初決定推出無限年假政策。不過，他最近在《哈佛商業(yè)評論》(Harvard Business Review)上解釋說，他并沒有亂來。

He decided to return any savings to employees, by boosting maternity leave and other benefits. He used a consultant to figure out pitfalls, such as people being afraid to ask for too much time off. He also tried to sidestep such problems by insisting employee leave was tracked to make sure managers were handling leave requests fairly.

他決定將由此產(chǎn)生的成本節(jié)省回饋給員工，增加產(chǎn)假天數(shù)，并改善其它福利。他聘請了一家咨詢公司，幫助梳理此舉可能會產(chǎn)生的弊端，比如員工不敢請?zhí)L的假。他還試圖規(guī)避這類問題，堅持要求員工休假情況得到追蹤，以確保各級經(jīng)理公平地處理休假申請。

The result: employees took off an average 2.6 more days last year than in 2015. Voluntary turnover dropped. Workers said they were happier and Mr Ain thinks it is no coincidence that 2016 was Kronos’s best financial year ever.

結(jié)果是：去年，員工平均休假天數(shù)比2015年多了2.6天。自愿離職減少。員工們表示他們更愉快了。艾因認(rèn)為，2016年是Kronos有史以來業(yè)績最佳的一年并非巧合。

I am not sure about that link but I have revised my opinion. I can see that there are upsides to unlimited vacations, but only at companies with an unlimited commitment to making sure that they actually work.

我不能確定這其中的關(guān)聯(lián)。不過，我調(diào)整了我的看法。我認(rèn)為，無限年假有它的好處，但只是在無限致力于確保此項政策奏效的公司。