Universal Basic Income

The Case for Universal Basic Income

Why it already exists and why the conversation needs to change.

Sep 09, 2026

I was recently asked by the HR Life Podcast to join Tony Benjamin in debating the concept of UBI. The idea came about a few months ago when I first debuted on their podcast to discuss fear around AI layoffs in Corporate America.

The conversation around UBI is incredibly complex and let me be clear: I am not an economist. People who are far more qualified than me should be discussing this but the conversation remains mostly silent while headlines around AI layoffs are coming out every day.

So why are our policy makers so quiet about the topic? I think for many politicians and policy makers, the conversation feels too polarizing to get involved. Like a puddle mixed of tears and crap that they’d rather jump over than step in.

But the truth is that it’s incredibly important we talk about it.

Tony and I felt like it we could have a political conversation without being political. So we did. The episode will be out within the next few weeks. I’ll post on my LI.

HR has spent the good portion of the last 20 years attempting to eliminate any controversial conversations from our workplaces. Well intended, it may be. In an effort to create inclusion, we stopped having tough conversations. The problem is that we’ve lost our ability to have tough conversations through this process. Which is why I believe is why we’ve turned to outrage instead of conversation.

So here’s my theory and the conversation I want to have.

UBI already exists. It just isn’t called UBI. It’s a patchwork of welfare systems that we’ve created over the years that do a poor job of what they’re designed to do. It’s social security, retirement programs, government welfare programs, and unemployment insurance.

Most of the debate around UBI is typically centered on whether or not workers should be paid wages for not working. People on the right traditionally see these systems as wasteful and fraught with potential for fraud and abuse. People on the left tend to favor the programs, with hopeful (sometimes naive) optimism the programs support those who need support. I believe it was Bernie Sanders who once said, “Because it’s hard to pull yourself up by the bootstraps when you have no boots.”

Too much conversation has been given around what could happen, but now we find ourselves at the precipice of what is happening.

If you spend any time on Linkedin or Reddit then you’ve had a front row seat to the outrage and frustration from people losing their jobs due to “AI Efficiency Layoffs.” With each day, new articles announce the layoffs, then the feeds fill up with people who have been impacted. Most posts are sentimental and tearful goodbyes; thanking coworkers, offering support, and requesting support in locating new employment.

While I’m not entirely convinced that AI Layoffs are truly happening due to efficiencies in every case, the reality is that people are losing their jobs.

It’s strange that most policy makers don’t seem to have major concerns over worker displacement. It may be that, since 2022, layoffs have become such a norm (specifically in the tech space) that no one bats an eye at the announcements. And the unemployment data would support the notion that everything is operating as normal.

Since Covid, the unemployment rate has been fairly consistent. By comparison, at the peak of covid it was 14.7%. Pre-covid, 3.5% and in 2021, coming out, it was 5.3%. In 2022 and 2023 the annual average remained at 3.6%, with an increase to 4% in 2024. As of August 2026, the rate sat at 4.1% which represents about 7 million Americans as unemployed.

But red flags around a struggling economy are starting to waive. Here’s where the report becomes controversial: the report only accounts for those were employed and are now actively searching for new work while they utilize government subsidized income.

The major concern many critics bring up, is that labor force participation is decreasing. The employment to population ratio was 59.1% in August, 2026. That is the lowest ratio that has existed within the American economy since 1960. The ratio peaked in the year 2000 when it was 64.4%.

When you look further at the data, and segment participation by age, what you’ll see is a slower growth in labor force participation in younger workers compared to older workers. Think, people under age 35 are taking less jobs than they used to. It tracks with current sentiment online: “I just graduated and can’t find a job. “

While the market seems to absorb some worker displacement, LinkedIn is starting to fill up with pleas from qualified workers who have been unempoyed 12+ months. People are asking for charitable contributions so they can feed their families, pay their rent, and survive.

Conversations around UBI or Universal Basic Income have re-emerged with controversial figures like Elon Musk and Gavin Newsome weighing in. Often there is a public outcry of frustration and rage from those opposing the idea.

While I’m not advocating for the concept of mailing a $2,000 check to every American each month, I do believe it is time we look at a wage floor. You can call it UBI, a Wage Floor, Longterm Unemployment. I don’t care. It’s all the same. And we’re not that far off from it already. Here’s why:

A wage floor already exists but it’s clunky and fragmented.

I’m not advocating for one Federal Fund. I’m advocating for consolidation of State Operated programs that would function like a long-term unemployment scenario that creates a wage floor for individuals.

Before you come at me about “welfare queens” and “why should I pay for someone to sit home?” the answer is that you already do. Programs already exist to provide long-term support to individuals who either can’t work or can’t find work. It comes in the form of SNAP benefits, government subsidized housing, and other similar programs. And in any public program, there’s a risk for abuse and fraud. What I’m simply asking is “Would there be less abuse and fraud if the programs were consolidated?” Would it be easier to track and prevent abuse if we centralized the administration on a State level?

When it comes to Unemployment, the infrastructure already exists. Social Security and Disability is already happening.

Each State already administers to a Federal Fund as well a State Operated Fund. It’s currently funded through payroll taxes. You and your employer contribute to Social Security jointly, and your employer pays Federal and State Unemployment tax.

Now you’re asking, well if we already have it- why bother making any changes?

America is uniquely fragile when it comes to mass worker displacement.

If AI displaces workers at the rate some project, we do not have the infrastructure to manage through it. And the question is not whether AI will displace workers, because it’s already happening.

The question is, do we have the infrastructure within the U.S. to manage the displacement? Because the way we manage employment in the U.S. is different than any other country in the world. Specifically in two ways:

Health insurance is tied to employment. In every other country, including many places you would argue are not are less desireable to live within, this is not the case. And right now, there is a growing movement toward Medicare for all. People are chanting it in the streets. I’m not an advocate for this. I believe that choice within the market drives competition.

The problem is that we’ve allowed our insurance companies to eliminate choice in the market. Back in 2008 when we were debating whether or not universal healthcare was right for America, one of the strongest arguments against it was the idea of choice.

Fast forward 16 years later, and we’ve allowed the insurance companies to eliminate that choice because they own the entire value chain within our healthcare systems. A captive market exists where insurance companies own the clinics, the hospitals, the pharmacy benefit managers, the pharmacies, and the networks. But that conversation is for another day.

Workers who are displaced by AI need access to health insurance and they cannot afford a $2,000 monthly premium while they are unemployed via COBRA.

Your Employment is At Will

America is the only country that at-will employment exists. In every other developed country, employment is a contract. I hear all the time “Utah is an At-will State.” Guess what legal genius: all U.S. states recognize at-will employment doctrine.

It means that, outside of what your state or the Federal Government deem to be discrimination, you or the employer can end employment at any time, without notice or reason. Meaning (outside of unionized environments) employment is not contractual.

Outside the U.S. it’s different. When an employer or an employee chooses to end that contract they are required to provide notice or pay in leiu of notice. It’s common for there to be some base amount such as four weeks and then an additional week for every year of seniority. So a severance or notice is baked into every employment relationship.

While HR teams advocate for severance during lay-offs- it’s not a guarantee for every worker. And now that HR teams are being dismantled, no one will be advocating for your continued employment or your severance pay. When severance policies and employment decisions are made through a only a financial lense, they dwindle.

Can employers afford increased unemployment taxes or severance mandates? If we put too much regulation on job creators, won’t they stop creating jobs? For everyone asking this question, here’s my question to you. If don’t do something, can we afford the mass displacement?

The problem with the current unemployment system.

The current unemployment system was pressure tested during covid and temporary adjustments to the system were necessary to keep it afloat. It’s no where near where it would need to be to manage through mass job displacement. Here are the major issues with the current system:

1. Current benefit amounts usually cap around $17-$18 per hour. So, if you were making $120,000 per year at your full-time job, only a small portion of your income is replaced through the current system. And that amount is nowhere near living wage in most states to keep up with a mortage, food, and your now hugely inflated COBRA bill to keep your family afloat.

2. Job seekers are reporting longer and longer periods of unemployment. It’s taking longer to find work than it used to and the benefits are capped to 26 weeks in most cases. Once you hit the cap, the money is gone.

3. Lastly, and most importantly: the current system is designed to keep people employed within the current jobs available in the market, not to create new value or jobs within the market.
   
   Here’s what I mean by that: In an economy that sees mass displacement due to new technology workers have two choices:

   1. Leave the workforce temporarily and become retrained in a new skills that are more valued in the market or,

   2. Start a new business based on their current skills, ideally generating new market demand for workers.

   
   Currently, you cannot access unemployment benefits if you are a full-time student or starting a business. To be eligible for the UI benefit, you must be seeking full-time work. So in both cases, right now you’re SOL for UI benefits.

And here’s the more concerning part, we need those displaced workers to keep spending.

The Economic Multiplier Effect.

Protecting consumer spending is probably one of the most important components of ensuring that our economy continues admit AI disruption.

That’s because every dollar spent by consumers has a multiplier effect. An economy cannot indefinitely automate the production of goods and services while simultaneously eliminating the income consumers need to purchase them. Someone has to buy the goods to fuel the production.

AI will increase the capacity to produce, but consumer spending remains necessary to create demand. Protecting consumer purchasing power, whether through UBI or long-term unemployment is an essential mechanism for sustaining economic demand.

I get it. A full overhaul of these programs and state centralized systems would take serious time and political cooperation that we may not have.

Here are things we could do NOW.

Public Transparency around Layoffs. We could create transparency for workers around employers who produce stable employment. States already have the data that could be made publicly available. They know the number of employees, they know annual revenues, and number of employees who claim unemployment. This could be made available to the public.

Yes, law requires WARN notices which are public, but WARN notices do not cover most layoff scenarios unless the employer is shutting down their facility or a large portion of their workforce.

Earlier Retirement or Partial Retirement Opportunities for Caregivers.

We have one of the oldest retirement ages in the world. By comparison, women in China can access retirement pensions as young as 55 and men at 60. In many South American, women can access at age 60 and men at 65. Workers in the U.S. must be 65 to access Medicare and 62 to access social security. 401K accounts cannot be accessed without penalty until age 59 and a half.

What if we allowed people over the age of 55 to access up to a certain dollar amount of retirement (tax sheltered, no penalties) if they are partially retiring to help provide care to elderly family members or day care to working parents?

So if your mom or dad, could access up to 50-70K per year of their 401K, without penalty, and help provide you with daycare. This would be one tool to help solve the daycare crisis for some (not all) and gets some of the population of the workforce, to make room for younger people trying to enter into the workforce.

To accomplish this, you would need to provide 1) earlier access to Medicare to allow for health insurance and 2) eliminate early access tax penalties for caregivers.

The Gist of It.

I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t pretend to know exactly what Universal Basic Income or Long-Term Unemployment should look like in America but I think that’s the point.

We need to start talking about this, now. Because the conversation about AI and employment shouldn’t begin after the crisis. It should begin before it becomes a crisis.

It’s time to stop arguing about whether a safety net is morally acceptable. We already have a safety net. It’s time to start asking whether the one we’ve built is capable of catching us.

Over and out. And as always, remember HR people are people too.

Brit

Looking for fractional HR Consulting for your small business? Next Level HR provides fractional work in addition to PEO Transition specialization.

Are you wondering whether or not it’s time to take the next step for your org, Schedule a free consultation.

#cancelyourpeo #nextlevelhr #outgrowyourPEO #fractionalHR

PEO, ASO, or EOR?

What’s the difference?

There are too many acronyms in the HR space. PEO, ASO, and EOR are three acronyms that every good HR practitioner should know. For start-up CEOs, Founders, and CFO’s- here’s the reader’s digest on what you should know about these acronyms.

PEO stands for Professional Employer Organization. Without boring you on the history on why this exists, here’s the essence of it. You lease your employees to another company for a service fee. In return, they manage payroll, taxes, and sometimes even provide benefits and insurance to your team. Oftentimes referred to as a “Co-Employer.”

The concept is most often used when a business is scaling from 1 to 50 people. The PEO becomes the Employer of Record, who is responsible for taxes and compliance while you (the client) remains the who is responsible for hiring and management (common law employer.)

This gives you access to specialized expertise as you grow.

You receive access to specialized experts who can support your business through growth. This typically looks like specialists in Payroll, Benefits, Human Resources Compliance, and sometimes Safety and Worker’s Compensation. It’s a turnkey solution for many small business owners who want to focus their time and energy on their field of expertise such as construction or technology without being pulled into the weeks of day to day administration.

When does a company outgrow their PEO?

Each company is a little different. At around 50 FTE’s the relationship often starts to feel clunky but the economics often work in your favor somewhere between 100-150 employees. Wondering how you’ll know? For Five signs you’re ready, reference this article.

Costs? Average costs for a PEO are around $120 PEPM. Some PEO’s will charge a percentage of payroll while others do a per payroll fee. Pro Negotiator Tip: if you have a lot of part-time workers, a percentage fee is usually to your benefit. Likewise, if you’re mostly comprised of full-time workers with higher salaries (like a Tech company), a PEPM or per payroll fee is usually your best bet.

ASO means Administrative Service Organization. This is similar to a PEO, but the main difference is that the employee remains employed through the Employer but provides authority to the ASO to administer Payroll, Taxes, and benefits on their behalf. Think ADP, Rippling, HiBob, BambooHR. This is the next step for you once you’ve outgrown a PEO.

You’re still utlimately responsible for ensuring people get paid, including taxes, but you’re provided technology and services to support you in this relationship. They streamline and minimize the amount of administrative work required from the back-end team to perform payroll, benefits, remit taxes, etc. Sometimes they can also provide specialized support to help with compliance related items such as ACA, FMLA, etc.

The costs involved in a basic offering for this are going to vary based on which provider you choose. It’s usually a PEPM (starting around $10 - $50) + additional fees based on which platforms you choose. For example, if you want support in administering benefits or access to an ATS (Applicant Tracking System) to support recruiting, you’ll pay more for those.

EOR, or Employer of Record is similar to a PEO, but is used for workers outside of the United States. So, if you hire someone in Canada or South America, you can pay a monthly fee for someone to become the Employer of Record for this person while you remain the day to day supervisor.

Cost? For a monthly fee, they’ll provide payroll, remit taxes, assist with employment compliance related issues, and help administer benefit programs. Cost? I’ve seen it as low as $200 PEPM up to $400 PEPM.

When does it make sense to move away from an EOR?

Most global companies, utilize an EOR for a few years while they initially operate and then move to open an entity within the country when they have created a decent sized group of employees within one localized country (25+ FTE’s). Costs will vary based on the country and the amount of employees you hire.

It’s common to see a PEO arrangement combined with EOR for companies under 50 people.

Are you wondering whether or not it’s time to take the next step for your org, let us know.

#cancelyourpeo #nextlevelhr #outgrowyourPEO

Why I’m not renewing my SHRM Cert

And it has nothing to do with DEI.

HR Folks far and wide have been talking about the speech that Johnny C Taylor gave at the SHRM national conference recently.

It’s a 48 minute speech and there’s a lot to unpack. I think a lot of pros in the field took away a great deal of value from it. The idea that the workforce is being reshaped and if HR doesn’t evolve, we’re at risk of extinction. I don’t disagree with the concept and the call to action. Here’s why HR people specifically should heed his advice but recognize when they’re being marketed to.

If you take nothing but this statement from this post, remember this: I have two predictions about SHRM.

Prediction 1: SHRM will announce a new certification focused on combining HR with AI in the next 6 months.

Prediction 2: SHRM will begin the process of moving from non-profit to for profit.

A great deal of Johnny’s speech is about the survey he conducted with 92 CEO’s about the impact and reputation of their HR people. Spoiler alert: 10% love HR, 60% tolerate it, and 30% see little or no value.

He explains how the reputation of HR has changed in the past five years. Within his research group, many mentioned that HR was a key partner when navigating the crisis management of the Pandemic. Moreover, he explains that CEO’s feel like HR has lost credibility since those days, in no small part stemming from The Great Resignation era of 2022. CEO’s (who he reminds us are our customer) are asking “Why should I retain my people? I showed them loyalty during the pandemic and then they resigned shortly following it.”

Clarification #1: During the pandemic, people in sectors like retail, food, entertainment, & travel/hospitality were shown no loyalty. These industries collapsed and many never recovered. I’d never heard of the conept of furlough until COVID and it’s something I never hope to have to say again.

Clarification #2: The Tech Industry boomed during Covid. There was record growth in this sector and record valuations. Market demand for an updated tech stack in the new remote era soared and overvaluations in the Tech industry drove The Great Resignation -and guess what, that’s not your HR team’s fault.

I would even go so far as to argue that this is still very much playing a role in the current state of AI Layoffs. If you don’t believe me, check out this post.

Johnny also encourages HR people to get to know their business better and he’s right. HR should know the business. I think Johnny knows his business better than most HR people do.

Perception in the market for SHRM has been rough under Johnny’s leadership. When he announced at the 2024 Annual Conference that SHRM was taking the Equity out of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, HR pros from all around the country took to social media in anger. Many claiming that they had dropped or were planning to drop their membership and certification. (As a side note, I don’t disagree with his approach. I actually posted about it in 2024.)

SHRM poured gasoline on the fire when they announced that Robby Starbuck would join as a panelist for the SHRM 2025 Blueprint event. The WSJ claiming that it prompted many attendees to pull out of the event.

Then, in December of 2025, Business Insider reported that SHRM lost a lawsuit and a jury awarded a previous employee award of 11.5M for racial discrimination.

Yeah, things have been rough for them but here’s where this gets interesting: SHRM’s revenue has still increased year over year - substantially. So with so much backlash from HR pros, claiming to not renew certs and not attend events, how has Mr. Taylor managed deliver such substantial increases to revenue?

Business Insider reported that SHRM's overall membership increased approximately 16% during Taylor's tenure. It also reported that membership revenue increased from approximately $69M to $75.6M in 2024 and that SHRM raised the annual membership price by 8% in February 2024. (There is a pay wall, sorry guys.)

So if you watch the full 48-minute speech, you’ll be impressed. Johnny C. Taylor is undeniably bright, charismatic, and polished.

SHRM pulled out all the stops for the production. The speech opened with a full military-style salute honoring America’s 250th birthday, complete with impressive visuals and theatrics. At one point, an enormous, visually stunning lion appeared on stage.

And while there’s no doubt that Mr. Taylor has a vision for SHRM, I’m out bro. I’m tired of being made to feel inadequate by an organization who sells the very products that will solve my inadequacy.

Like I said, Johnny C Taylor knows his business better than most HR professionals.

Over and out. And as always, HR people are people too.

#cancelyourpeo #nextlevelhr

Four signs you should transition away from your PEO (Professional Employer Organization)

PEO’s are a great solution for a small company that is scaling. Often they provide value to companies that are too small for a full HR function but still require some expertise around payroll, benefit administration, and human resources. Most companies begin using a PEO around 5 - 10 employees and it makes sense to stick with the PEO through 50-100.

As you scale your business, the relationship often becomes more and more clunky. Here are five signs your business is due for a transition away.

Sign 1: Payroll is constantly wrong and the math doesn’t math. PEO’s charge a service fee. It’s typically a percentage of payroll or a PEPM (Per employee per month.) What you likely don’t know is that you’re also paying more fees in the form of increase payroll taxes. It’s not significant, but often grows over time. FUTA,SUTA, FICA, Workers Comp, etc. PEO’s are notorious for providing one invoice with a lump sum amount per employee and no transparency into how the taxes are broken down. Beware that where there’s mystery, there’s margin.

Sign 2: Your onboarding and offboarding feels clunky. First impressions are important and there’s no shortage of research that will tell you that onboarding employees effectively hugely impacts future productivity and engagement. When you’re a small shop, onboarding is often centralized to one or two people who know the ins and outs of every facet of your business. Once you’ve reached that 100 person threshold, business processes become more complex and there are more stakeholders involved in each component. Adding a fully outsourced process to the mix can often exacerbate the weaknesses in the process.

Sign 3: Your health insurance plans increase year over year with little to no explanation. A major selling point to the PEO model is the ability for your team to access the health plans available. As a company of 5-50 people, this is a win. As I mentioned in my recent substack post, once you hit the 150 - 200 theshold, it’s time to start evaluating more self-funded or level funded options.

Sign 4: Talent Aquisition feels disconnected from compensation. Any good HR Exec will give you a full overview of why talent acquisition and total rewards have to remain in lock step. When you’re outsourcing to a PEO, no one on the other side is evaluating any component of job architecture. When you’re a 50 person company, pay bands and compensation philosophy feels like red tape. When you’re scaling from 100-200 people, this becomes increasingly important. If you don’t set the foundation to the house quick enough, scaling beyond 300 is going to be overwhelmingly painful.

So there you have it, those are the signs you should look out for. And, if you need any help- hit me up.

And always remember, HR People are people too.

#cancelyourpeo
#mynextlevelhr

Brit

Three Facts and One Myth about Unlimited Vacation

I recently watched a video of Katherine Anne Edwards on her podcast, The Optimist Economy, talking about unlimited vacation and honestly, it kind of pissed me off. 

At one point, Katherine blurts out that unlimited time off policies are fascism. SMH..  and I could practically hear every HR professional collectively cringe in horror.

So here are the facts on the situation. 

Fact 1: It's Not Unlimited. It's Unaccrued.

When employees accrue vacation, those hours are a liability on the company's books — real dollars sitting there until they're used or paid out. The employee just sees a bank of hours ticking up with each paycheck but behind the scenes, the accounting team  is running a cash accrual every month to manage that liability. They hate it. 

That's not some conspiracy and it’s definitely not fascism –  It's capitalism and it’s how every business that exists manages their finances. Your CFO doesn't want that liability sitting on the balance sheet. An "unaccrued" PTO policy makes it disappear.

Fact 2: The Research is Mixed. 

I know what you're thinking: what about the research showing employees on unlimited plans take less time off than employees on accrual plans? Here's what you need to know about that.

The study everyone cites was conducted back in 2018, by an HR tech company called Namely.

Namely (2018). Namely analyzed PTO usage across its client base and found employees on unlimited plans took 13 days off per year on average, versus 15 days for employees on traditional accrual plans — a two-day gap.

Namely (2022 follow-up). Namely re-ran the analysis across 1,000 client companies post-pandemic. The gap had nearly closed: unlimited-plan employees took 12.09 days versus 11.36 days for accrual-plan employees. The comparison had actually flipped slightly in favor of unlimited plans.

SHRM / Empower (October 2024). The most recent large-scale data, drawn from Empower's "Pursuit of PTO" research, found unlimited-PTO employees take 16 days off versus 14 days for employees on specific-day policies. No penalty at all.

Settling the Myth.

So the data is mixed, at best. The "unlimited PTO makes people take less time off" claim is really one 2018 data point that hasn't held up consistently since — and it's worth knowing that before you cite it in a debate. So that demystifies the myth. Employers are not changing their policy to an unaccrued plan to ensure workers take less time off.

Fact 3: The plan design has a lot to do with remote vs. in person work. 

The Actual Nightmare: Accrual Plans in a Remote World

An accrued PTO policy at a fully remote company is genuinely hard to manage. Nobody is clocking in. Nobody is taking attendance.

So people take the day off — but conveniently never submit the request. Their accrual just keeps climbing, year after year, until one day they resign with a massive payout waiting for them. That unused balance isn't dead weight sitting quietly in a spreadsheet. In a lot of states, it's a check the company legally owes on the way out the door.

That's the real difference between the two models. With an accrual plan, a lot of states legally require the employer to pay out an employee's unused, accrued vacation when they separate — resignation, termination, doesn't matter. 

And  trust me, in every organization, there's a small percentage of people who almost never use their vacation. HR always knows exactly who they are. Because they tend to be aggressive, weirdly competitive, and universally hard to work with — IFYKYK.

Fact 4: Certain States Require Certain Things

This is where accrual plans carry real financial risk that unaccrued plans simply don't. As of 2026, at least 19 states require some form of payout for unused vacation. They fall into two tiers.

States where payout is required no matter what your policy says. These states legally treat accrued vacation as earned wages, which means it can't be forfeited — and "use-it-or-lose-it" policies are banned outright:

• California

• Colorado

• Massachusetts

• Montana

• Nebraska

States where payout is required by default, unless the employer has a clear written policy stating otherwise. In these states, employers have more flexibility, but silence defaults to payout:

• Illinois

• Indiana

• Louisiana

• Maine

• Maryland

• New Hampshire

• New Mexico

• New York

• North Carolina

• North Dakota

• Ohio

• Rhode Island

• West Virginia

• Wisconsin

In the remaining roughly states there's no statutory requirement at all. Payout comes down entirely to whatever the employer's written policy says.

The thing that makes this, well absolutely the worst: The obligation follows the state where the employee actually works, not where your company is headquartered. If you've got a remote team, you don't get to pick and choose — you're managing 19-plus different sets of rules depending on where your people log in from. Worse, if your company provides some negotiation room to the amount of vacation someone receives when they join, well then you can multiply each accrual plan by each state. And now you know why this is a nightmare. 

What Really Matters

Listen, whether your plan is accrued or unaccrued, your ability to take vacation has everything to do with the capacity of the company to cover you while you’re out. If you work in a good culture, they figure it out. If you work in a poor culture, you’ll likely be chastised and your manager will guilt trip you every time they approve the request. 

So take your vacation – you’ve earned it – but actually submit it in the system.

And just remember, HR people are people too.

#unlimitedvacation #paidvacation #cancelyourpeo #mynextlevelhr

Sources

• Unlimited, Limited, Minimum: Does the PTO Plan Type Matter? (Namely, 2022) — source for the 2018 original study and 2022 follow-up

• Here's How Many Days Employees with Unlimited PTO Take (SHRM, October 17, 2024) — citing Empower's "Pursuit of PTO" research

• PTO Payout Laws by State [2026] (Rippling)

• PTO Payout Laws by State in 2026 (Paycor)

• Which States Require Payout of Unused Vacation? (Wellhub)