According to Inc., a controversial “unlimited” paid time off policy requires employees to explain their planned activities, specify needed time off duration, and receive department-wide voting approval before PTO requests are granted. The policy’s justification claims that since coworkers must cover duties during absences, they should have input on approval decisions. This approach creates significant discrimination risks, particularly in states like California where traditional accrued vacation must be paid out upon termination, while unlimited PTO carries no such financial liability for employers. The analysis suggests this democratic allocation method could enable workplace bullying, personal biases, and unequal treatment based on popularity rather than merit.
Table of Contents
The Discrimination Minefield
What makes this peer-voting PTO system particularly dangerous from a legal standpoint is how it institutionalizes potential discrimination. Under traditional paid time off systems, approval criteria are typically based on business needs like coverage and workload. When you introduce peer voting, you’re essentially creating a system where protected characteristics—race, gender, age, disability status—can unconsciously or consciously influence decisions. Employment attorneys would likely view this as a textbook case of disparate impact, even if no overt discrimination occurs. The very structure invites unequal treatment, and companies implementing such systems would struggle to defend against discrimination claims when patterns of approval disparities emerge across demographic groups.
The Cultural Consequences
Beyond legal exposure, this approach fundamentally undermines workplace trust and psychological safety. When employees must essentially campaign for basic benefits among their peers, you create an environment ripe for resentment, clique formation, and social manipulation. High performers might find themselves penalized with fewer approvals because their absence creates more work for others, while less productive employees might receive more approvals precisely because their absence is less disruptive. This perverse incentive structure rewards mediocrity and punishes excellence. The system also eliminates privacy around how employees use their personal time, forcing them to justify and disclose personal activities that should remain private.
The Leadership Failure
This policy represents a fundamental abdication of management responsibility. Effective leadership requires making difficult decisions about resource allocation and coverage—that’s literally what managers are paid to do. By pushing these decisions to peer voting, organizations are essentially admitting their management team cannot be trusted with basic supervisory functions. The logic that coworkers should decide because they bear the coverage burden misunderstands organizational hierarchy. In well-functioning companies, managers coordinate coverage and ensure business continuity—they don’t outsource these decisions to popularity contests.
The Hidden Cost Savings
Many companies adopt unlimited PTO precisely for the financial benefits masked as employee perks. Traditional accrued PTO represents a significant liability on company balance sheets—money that must be paid out when employees leave. Unlimited PTO eliminates this financial obligation entirely. The peer voting component adds another layer of cost control by creating social pressure that naturally suppresses time-off usage. Employees in such systems often take less time off than they would under traditional plans due to fear of social repercussions or rejection. This creates a double financial win for companies: reduced liabilities and increased presenteeism, both disguised as progressive workplace policies.
Practical Alternatives That Work
Companies genuinely interested in flexible time-off policies should consider structured approaches that balance autonomy with responsibility. Minimum usage requirements—where employees must take a specified number of days annually—prevent the “unlimited but unused” phenomenon. Clear managerial guidelines with oversight from HR ensure consistency while maintaining accountability. Departmental blackout periods for critical business cycles provide necessary structure without resorting to peer pressure. The most effective systems combine generous but defined time-off allowances with a culture that actively encourages usage, recognizing that well-rested employees deliver better results than burned-out ones constantly worrying about their social standing.
The Regulatory Reality
While the article suggests treating this policy “as if it’s illegal,” the actual legal landscape is more nuanced but equally concerning. In states with specific discrimination protections and accrued vacation laws, this policy would likely face immediate legal challenges. Even in more employer-friendly jurisdictions, the discovery process alone during litigation would be devastating—imagine subpoenaed records showing voting patterns correlated with demographic data. Regulatory bodies like the EEOC would likely view such systems with extreme skepticism, and the plaintiff’s bar would undoubtedly see them as fertile ground for class action lawsuits. The compliance risks far outweigh any perceived benefits of this approach.
