<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3ARetroactive_Vacation_Credit</id>
	<title>Talk:Retroactive Vacation Credit - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Talk%3ARetroactive_Vacation_Credit"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php?title=Talk:Retroactive_Vacation_Credit&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-04-21T14:25:59Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.1</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php?title=Talk:Retroactive_Vacation_Credit&amp;diff=17330&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Rfs at 20:43, 3 February 2005</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php?title=Talk:Retroactive_Vacation_Credit&amp;diff=17330&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2005-02-03T20:43:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;Questions for consideration:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Q: What should we do with the back hours &amp;quot;earned&amp;quot; up to this&lt;br /&gt;
point? At what point do we want to say that we started&lt;br /&gt;
accumulating sick and vacation hours?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Q: We may not be able to give ourselves vacation and sick hours&lt;br /&gt;
for years previous to 2003 without affecting back taxes, so we&lt;br /&gt;
might have to work out another way to distribute them. How?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Q: Oso, Richard, and Laurel each have in the neighborhood of 200&lt;br /&gt;
hours total (assuming we go all the way back). If each of us&lt;br /&gt;
took six weeks off, that time would be eaten up. Marlin and&lt;br /&gt;
Rick have accumulated less hours, but also work less per week,&lt;br /&gt;
so they too would have about six weeks coming. We obviously&lt;br /&gt;
can&amp;#039;t afford to do this all at the same time (or maybe not even&lt;br /&gt;
at all), even if we want to. Can we consider some kind of&lt;br /&gt;
partial credit? Can we spread out the time off in little pieces&lt;br /&gt;
over a whole year? (One week every two months == six weeks in&lt;br /&gt;
one year.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here&amp;#039;s a series of proposals to think about that should address&lt;br /&gt;
most of the issues above. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. We give vacation hours retroactively to everyone in the&lt;br /&gt;
collective for all hours worked on Free Geek&amp;#039;s payroll, whether&lt;br /&gt;
directly or through Anarchy Software. (Implementation suggestions&lt;br /&gt;
below.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[An alternative to number 1 is to give half hours or some other&lt;br /&gt;
fraction for the time worked in the Anarchy Software era.]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. At this point, if workers have accumulated &amp;quot;too much&amp;quot; time, we&lt;br /&gt;
can split it in half, and require half the time to be taken in&lt;br /&gt;
this calendar year or else be lost. The balance would have to be&lt;br /&gt;
taken by the end of 2005 or lost. The original Anarchy Software&lt;br /&gt;
employees all have in excess of 5 weeks due at this point.&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone else has accumulated less than 2 weeks, so we might draw&lt;br /&gt;
the line between &amp;quot;just right&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;too much&amp;quot; at five weeks&lt;br /&gt;
accumulated. The point of this would be to spread out the&lt;br /&gt;
vacation time so that the effect on the schedule would be&lt;br /&gt;
minimized. Also to encourage people to take their time off for&lt;br /&gt;
general reasons of sanity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now the question &amp;quot;We may not be able to give ourselves vacation&lt;br /&gt;
and sick hours for years previous to 2003 without affecting back&lt;br /&gt;
taxes, so we might have to work out another way to distribute&lt;br /&gt;
them. How?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not a tax attorney, but my common sense says that vacation&lt;br /&gt;
isn&amp;#039;t money (unless you&amp;#039;re on a plan where you cash out at some&lt;br /&gt;
point). If we give the original five workers vacation credit for&lt;br /&gt;
time worked in 2000-2002, we&amp;#039;re giving it to them now. That means&lt;br /&gt;
they&amp;#039;re only being taxed on the money they&amp;#039;re receiving this year&lt;br /&gt;
and no back taxes are actually owed. In other words, I think this&lt;br /&gt;
is a red herring and we shouldn&amp;#039;t worry too much about it. But we&lt;br /&gt;
should run it by someone who knows this stuff before acting upon&lt;br /&gt;
it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An couple of examples might make it easier to understand. Let&amp;#039;s&lt;br /&gt;
say we go with proposals 1 and 2 above as stated. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of 2003, Oso had accumulated 204 hours of vacation&lt;br /&gt;
(about 6.4 weeks). If he takes off four weeks this year, his&lt;br /&gt;
salary would be the same as if he didn&amp;#039;t take the time off. The&lt;br /&gt;
only difference was how much he had to work to earn that money.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vagrant has 36.3 hours coming to him right now. By the time he&lt;br /&gt;
quits at the end of May, it will be in the neighborhood of 47.5&lt;br /&gt;
hours (or about 2 weeks). In that case, he gets paid for about&lt;br /&gt;
two weeks of work when he leaves. That&amp;#039;s money he owes taxes on,&lt;br /&gt;
but for this year, not for last year.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now maybe a tax accountant will tell us that we owe taxes on&lt;br /&gt;
the money we&amp;#039;ll eventually (someday maybe) get in the year we&lt;br /&gt;
accrued the hours, not the year we get paid for them. In that&lt;br /&gt;
event, it seems we could (temporarily) give the workers who&lt;br /&gt;
are owed back time a larger fraction for calculating this year&amp;#039;s&lt;br /&gt;
vacation time to make up the difference. Again, we shouldn&amp;#039;t get&lt;br /&gt;
too far into this unless we learn that it really is a problem.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Rfs</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>