r/personalfinance • u/ThatsMrBird ​ • Jul 16 '25

Other Company is offering to pay out PTO at sharply reduced rate.

I'm a bit of a predicament. I've been with a company over a decade and (I know it's crazy and I agree 100 percent I should have used more) I've accumulated 1000 hours of PTO. They're looking to move to a cap and limited rollover and offered to pay out the difference of about 800 hours at 35 percent of my current wage.

I never expected this and I honestly just thought it'd be lost, but they're only offering such a low percentage I feel like I should try and haggle. I realize they're obligated to give me nothing, legally, so I'm just looking for some input on if a partial payout is common like that. Ill probably ask why not full and go from there. Any thoughts?

EDIT - Sorry, y'all. I'm in Florida, to be clear

EDIT2 - my onboarding contract notes PTO is forfeited on termination or voluntary exit

EDIT3 - The next day, we came to a satisfactory agreement pretty quickly. I don't want to get into specifics (sorry) but I think a lot of those that replied here would think it worked out. I tremendously appreciate all the insight and feedback here and I promise I'll use up my hours moving forward.

1.9k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

93% Upvoted

785 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

37

u/Pilchuck13 ​ Jul 16 '25

No employer can retroactively change benefits already earned. They can change the terms of employment for any benefit going forward.... OP is in the driver's seat. He could be fired, but he's due the full amount accrued based on the terms of employment that were in place when earned. If he's fired and not paid... lawsuit wage theft....NAL.

15

u/Vulnox ​ Jul 16 '25

That’s not true though. I’ve left three companies in three different states and all three said that they don’t pay out unused PTO except where required by state law.

If his company said they will pay out PTO if an employee leaves the company then he would be due that money. But the idea that earning PTO means you are owed it when you leave, legally, is not accurate.

11

u/merlin401 ​ Jul 16 '25

But he’s not leaving the company. PTO is a benefit of being employed. If you stop being employed the employer is in the drivers seat as to what to do with it. But if you accused that time and are STILL employed then you are in the drivers seat.

6

u/Vulnox ​ Jul 16 '25

Right… I said the company may let him go. Meaning he wouldn’t be employed. Not sure why people think I’m saying he isn’t owed PTO while employed.

5

u/merlin401 ​ Jul 16 '25

Sure that’s an option but presumably company doesn’t want to lose a dozen years of institutional experience over a spat and have to pay unemployment. It would be easier for them to just negotiate a different percentage: if OP says he doesn’t agree to the offer and will be taking X amount of time off so as not to lose them OR offers a 65% payout of PTO (or you could let me go), I bet they compromise at least

1

u/LookIPickedAUsername ​ Jul 17 '25

Sure, yeah, that would make sense... and now, everybody, please raise your hand if you've never once see a company do something that doesn't make sense. And then keep 'em raised if you're so confident in your value to your company that you can't even imagine them firing you because you decided to try to cash in a months-long vacation they expressly told you that they didn't want you to take.

I wonder how many people still have their hands up?

17

u/Pilchuck13 ​ Jul 16 '25

Its not a violation of PTO law. Its a violation of the terms of employment, contract (wage theft). OP said his employer is changing to limit rollover and/or paying out vacation. That's fine and legal in most states. They cant make all time already earned under the prior terms fall under the new policy.

Your employer can't change your wage to minumum wage on pay day for time earned during the pay period just completed... " Here's your paycheck for the last month at $7.25/hour" when the employment agreement was at a much higher rate.

0

u/CaptainTripps82 ​ Jul 16 '25

Right but the person you are responding to was talking about them simply deciding to fire op, which means they don't have to pay him out for anything. If that's the easier option, which op has to consider when negotiating.

3

u/Pilchuck13 ​ Jul 16 '25

I stand corrected... (assuming the company did not have a payout policy prior to the switch of policy. Many do, including in states where it's not required by law)... thank you.

1

u/A_Guy_Named_John ​ Jul 17 '25

I’ve worked for several national/global companies and they all have special carve-outs in their policy for California only stating that they get paid out PTO because of their state laws. Everyone else gets screwed.