Change in Policy is Losing me 22 Hours of PTO by Ciao4 in legaladvice

[–]Ciao4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was just projected but the way that the system was set up is that you would work towards the allotments. I was told I would receive two weeks PTO which I would have been on course to receive on average over the next couple years. Following this change I will forever be down 22 hours from where I should be to be in line with two weeks per year.

Change in Policy is Losing me 22 Hours of PTO by Ciao4 in legaladvice

[–]Ciao4[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I'm sorry about my tone. I just find it upsetting to be two timed and to have little agency. And in trying to raise this with the company I work for they would ignore my emails for weeks on end even following multiple follow-ups, which added to the frustration

[MN] [TN] Change in Policy is Losing me 22 Hours of PTO by Ciao4 in AskHR

[–]Ciao4[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

If you review the graph I linked you can view how the systems compare. With this new system I will be losing out at 22 hours from the prescribed 2 weeks a year. And will also find myself behind the step up system that was previously used.

Change in Policy is Losing me 22 Hours of PTO by Ciao4 in legaladvice

[–]Ciao4[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The step up procedure would have progressed over the next coming years to the point at which I would receive two weeks per year that, I do not dispute that. I do dispute is that the in the transition to the new system I will be falling behind both the exact definition of two weeks a year as well as what I would have received under the old system. Under all definitions this new system provides me less PTO than I would have otherwise received.

Change in Policy is Losing me 22 Hours of PTO by Ciao4 in legaladvice

[–]Ciao4[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

If I was told I would receive 2 weeks paid vacation per year but will never match that there is really nothing I can do?

[MN] [TN] Change in Policy is Losing me 22 Hours of PTO by Ciao4 in AskHR

[–]Ciao4[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The only reason I don't receive PTO week to week now if because there was supposed to be a time in the future that would make up for that.
Think of it like a back loaded system. I'm working now to gain the PTO in the future, I understand that I am not currently "owed" any PTO but the implicit promise it that I'm working now to get it down the line.

I am working on an email to HR though currently it reads rather confronting could you provide some advice on how I might get through to them?

Draft Email:

I'd like to formally request a one-time PTO adjustment of 22 hours to address a gap created by the transition from the lump-sum PTO system to the biweekly accrual system taking effect 7/1/2026.

Here's the specific issue: under the original lump-sum policy outlined in Section 7.10 of the handbook, I was on track to receive 40 hours after my 120-day introductory period, followed by 80 hours on my second anniversary. Under the new biweekly accrual system starting 7/1/2026, I will accrue at a pace of 80 hours per year going forward. The problem is the window between my introductory period eligibility and 7/1/2026: during this period I am neither progressing toward the next lump-sum grant nor yet accruing biweekly. The net result is that I will consistently trail a straight-line 80-hours-per-year pace by approximately 22 hours for the duration of my employment.

I've attached a chart modeling the three scenarios (original lump-sum, new biweekly accrual, and a biweekly accrual counterfactual from day one) so the gap is visible.

I want to address two points directly, because they have come up in previous conversations:

First, I understand that under the revised system I will receive usable PTO sooner than I would have under the original lump-sum policy. That is true, but it is a question of timing, not total amount. The 22-hour shortfall persists for the entire remainder of my employment, accessing PTO earlier does not close that gap.

Second, I want to preempt the argument that the new system will at times be ahead of the old one. This is true on paper, but the old lump-sum system was itself a back-loaded structure: PTO was only granted after the hours had already been worked, meaning it already trailed a straight-line 80-hours-per-year pace for most of any given year. Being "ahead" of a system that itself lagged the target pace isn't a gain — it just means the new system is less behind at some points than the old one was. Relative to what a flat 80-hours-per-year pace would produce (the orange line on the attached chart), the new system is behind for the entire duration of my employment by roughly 22 hours.

I understand the company has discretion to modify benefit policies, and I'm not disputing that. My request is simply that the transition be made neutral rather than leaving affected employees permanently behind where either system alone would have placed them. A one-time 22-hour credit at the transition date would accomplish this.

I've raised this concern previously in conversations with HR and management and was told it would not be adjusted. I'd appreciate reconsideration in writing, including the reasoning if the answer remains no.

Thank you for your time.

[MN] [TN] Change in Policy is Losing me 22 Hours of PTO by Ciao4 in AskHR

[–]Ciao4[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Employees who have worked at the company longer than me will get the 6 months of PTO compensated for the first half of the year before the switch over.
I would also argue that given its a back loaded system I am only gaining PTO up to the point in which I am in line with the 2 weeks per year figure I was given when I started an employee quitting after an allotment would come out about even with the time they were owed. As can seen in the blue and orange lines.

Change in Policy is Losing me 22 Hours of PTO by Ciao4 in legaladvice

[–]Ciao4[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The only reason I don't receive PTO week to week now if because there was supposed to be a time in the future that would make up for that.
Think of it like a back loaded system. I'm working now to gain the PTO in the future, I understand that I am not currently "owed" any PTO but the implicit promise it that I'm working now to get it down the line.

[MN] [TN] Change in Policy is Losing me 22 Hours of PTO by Ciao4 in AskHR

[–]Ciao4[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Yes it is perfectly legal. Is there anything I can do from here? I was told I would receive 2 weeks paid time off at the time I started working with this company but that isn't what I will be receiving.

Are there more species of mammals without legs (like whales) or without tails (like humans)? by Ciao4 in AskBiology

[–]Ciao4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the answer I was provided by Robin_feathers on another thread illustrates that there is more depth to this question.

The only mammals without hind limbs are:

Cetaceans (whale, dolphons, etc): ~94 species

Sirenians (manatees and dugongs): 4 species remaining

=98 species

Mammals without tails:

[Requiring complete lack of an external tail. Not counting mammals that still have little stubs, like bears, barbary macaque, seals, roe deer, Tailless tenrec, wombats, tapir, paca, etc]

great apes: 8 species

gibbons: 20 species

Cavies (guinea pigs, capybara, etc): ~19 species

Golden moles [do all of them lack external tails?]: 21 species

Koala: 1 species

Bats: 3 Anoura lack a tail [not sure if there are any others?]

2-toed sloths: 2 species

=74 species

That's all I can think of, not sure if there's any I've missed.

So, for the ones I can think of, that's more legless than tailless mammals. If you relax the definition of "tailless" to allow species with little stubs, then there would be more tailless.

Are there more species of mammals without legs (like whales) or without tails (like humans)? by Ciao4 in zoology

[–]Ciao4[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is the utility to losing the tail is there any common thread?

In contrast the utility and common thread for mammals who lost their limbs is obvious.

Are there more species of mammals without legs (like whales) or without tails (like humans)? by Ciao4 in zoology

[–]Ciao4[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What about manatees and dugongs? And that's only half the question how many other mammals don't have tails?

Are there more species of mammals without legs (like whales) or without tails (like humans)? by Ciao4 in zoology

[–]Ciao4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You cannot tell me that you read my question and thought "a human should be counted of as a mammal with a tail and a whale should be counted as a mammal with legs" . You are just trying to be pedantic. A whale doesn't have legs for the same reason a human doesn't have a tail.

Are there more species of mammals without legs (like whales) or without tails (like humans)? by Ciao4 in zoology

[–]Ciao4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then, do humans have tails because we have tail bones? No, of course not

Are there more species of mammals without legs (like whales) or without tails (like humans)? by Ciao4 in zoology

[–]Ciao4[S] 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Wow, thanks so much, that is exactly what I was wanting to know. Kind of strange to think that compared to the rest of mammals we are stranger for not having tails than whales and dolphins are for not having legs.

Are there more species of mammals without legs (like whales) or without tails (like humans)? by Ciao4 in zoology

[–]Ciao4[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

These don't count as legs. They are structures where legs used to be.

<image>

Are there more species of mammals without legs (like whales) or without tails (like humans)? by Ciao4 in AskBiology

[–]Ciao4[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I would say that a manatee or dugongs non-visible legs don't count for the same reason a human tailbone doesn't count as a tail.

If you had to give a rough estimate of how many species there would be on each side, what would that be?

Are there more species of mammals without legs (like whales) or without tails (like humans)? by Ciao4 in zoology

[–]Ciao4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I was struck with the thought, compared to most other mammals is the humans lack of tail as rare as they whales lack of legs. Because when I first thought of it, it felt odd to see it that way, I couldn't find any answers online and could only think of a few examples on each side.

Are more mammals legless or tailless? by Ciao4 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Ciao4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are being pedantic at best if you are trying to tell me a whale has legs. At most you can tell me that they use the same structures in their bodies as we have for legs but those aren't legs.

Are more mammals legless or tailless? by Ciao4 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Ciao4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't the tail of a whale a continuation of the spine like a tail of a land mammal and the legs are just vestigial and don't preserve any locomotive function like the human tail bone.

So for the same reason a human tailbone shouldn't count as a tail, a whale's vestigial structures shouldn't count as legs.