Submitted by Jumpy-Natural4868 t3_10peskj in pittsburgh
tesla3by3 t1_j6kjsg7 wrote
Reply to comment by DannyLameJokes in BNY Mellon takes unusual step in overhauling its 401(k) plan by Jumpy-Natural4868
Isn't it standard policy- maybe even FDIC rules- that most bank employees have to take two consecutive weeks?
dank8844 t1_j6korj3 wrote
Banks sold it as a rule, but it was a recommended safeguard to require 5 consecutive days. Worked in the Hr department of one of the other large banks in Pittsburgh and we had to navigate this issue while I was there
DannyLameJokes t1_j6kk5ru wrote
Not sure, but I worked at two other banks without having that policy. Could be position by position. But if your forced to have that policy then you should give your employees more time.
flesh2012 t1_j6koh3l wrote
It depends on position or department in the bank. Those positions are for “high risk”. They make you take two weeks off once a year to help insure you aren’t doing anything illegal that can be caught when you aren’t there to do it.
Corny_Toot t1_j6kyztj wrote
Which is totally cool, if you get paid for it.
Jumpy-Natural4868 OP t1_j6l317c wrote
Except that may be your only vacation, which sucks.
Corny_Toot t1_j6mnpih wrote
It does. It feels like they skip the part where treating workers well means they're less likely to pull sneaky shit.
Jumpy-Natural4868 OP t1_j6mqzkh wrote
I'm not sure higher pay means you do less sneaky shit, honestly.
I know it's not directly comparable, but there's a study that looked at people stealing office supplies from work, and it's the higher paid people who did that.
I also think it's an access thing -- if you have easy access, you'll be more tempted to do it, no matter what you're paid.
And in terms of altruism, data shows that people who make less money, on average, contribute a higher % of their income to charity than higher wage earners.
Corny_Toot t1_j6my1q4 wrote
So, I'm coming from it from the perspective of the lower end of the ranks here. Staff that might not have enough vacation time accrued for this mandatory policy, for example. If they're made whole, I believe there would be a lower risk. That also includes more than pay for sure. That's providing them respect and solid feedback. Making them feel seen, if you get what I'm saying.
It kind of reminds me of loss prevention practices for retail, honestly. Usually, the most effective thing you can do to prevent theft is just saying hello to people. So in this case, it's more being a good manager and touching base with your staff frequently enough that they feel seen, but not too much that they feel smothered.
I think you're right about access, just having access to that information is a risk factor. Everyone's motivation is different. But pay is a crucial factor in reducing risk. It might not help against someone that's already greedy, but it could prevent someone that's just desperate from making a mistake.
flesh2012 t1_j6kz4ht wrote
I wasn’t in one of those departments at the bank, but I’m pretty sure it was your own PTO.
Dancing_Hitchhiker t1_j6kob0n wrote
I have heard that they can make you take a 2 weeks off depending on your position. I have had a bunch of different positions at different banks and never had this enforced in any of my positions.
Jumpy-Natural4868 OP t1_j6l2xsh wrote
It's for "sensitive" jobs. Not sure who calls what jobs sensitive or not.
ArgyllFire t1_j6laa22 wrote
It's basically whether or not you have access to input/approve financial transactions (wires mostly).
Also, if I recall correctly they did increase starting vacation to 3-4 weeks a few years ago so I don't think people in sensitive positions have to use full vacation all at once anymore.
Other fuckery mentioned mostly still checks out.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments