Companies are usually okay with people taking unpaid leave. Tell your manager "I'd like to take a 3 month unpaid sabbatical to do $fun, would July - Sep work okay?"
Companies are not usually ok with this. Do not ask for a 3 month sabbatical unless you are already about to quit. Plenty of companies would consider firing you on the spot.
Yeah; they're paying you for the work you do. Even unpaid, it still leaves this gaping hole in what they need done. They won't be able to find someone to pitch in for 3 months for any sort of skilled work, and they actually will still be on the hook for your benefits. The paid part for many companies is almost immaterial; if they'll let you have unpaid time off, they'll let you have paid time off. If they won't let you have paid time off, they won't let you have unpaid time off.
Even as a manager, it's easier for me to let someone have one day off a week PTO, with a wink and a nod, than it is to formally get someone to work 80% hours. And that barely is perceptible to upper leadership.
I recall hearing another firm that did sabbaticals usually meant the employee was just getting ready to leave. People would spend a few months doing some travelling, relaxing, leetcode and interviewing - with safe fall back in case they didn't get anything.
Our firm has a stipulation in the sabbatical wherein one would forfeit their severance / payout if they leave within one year of returning from sabbatical.
You're probably right in that most of those employees are itching to leave already, but financially it would make more sense just quit than take a 2 month sabbatical and then lose a larger payout.
First, most tech companies provide -paid- paternity leave. Which was my point. The burden on most companies isn't the pay for that period of time, it's the loss of capacity.
Second, the companies that object to that loss of capacity often either misunderstand the nature of the work, or have built their teams without any slack and so have set themselves up for failure. In the former, the teams are fine with the person going out even though management doesn't like it; in the latter they aren't, which is why legally mandated parental leave is so important, since otherwise, as we've seen, a badly run company will make it so you can't take time off.
Third, parental leave tends not to affect multiple members of a team at once. PTO and UTO can. Having too open a policy can lead to half a team being gone for a month, in such a way context doesn't transfer well and actually costs the team a whole month, which will have a lot more effect on productivity than one person being gone for a a couple of months. Obviously you can still have a policy that allows people to do it, but it requires thoughtfulness on the part of someone to ensure it still works out. Again, pulling from example, the big pushback I had to having a person formally reduce their hours by 20% is "what happens if multiple people on the team ask for that?" and that's also why it's easier and less risky to the business to have the person take a day off every week, paid. It means that it can be more easily managed if others taking simultaneous time off is a problem, since pay isn't involved (i.e., you can ask the individual to return to 100% hours until everyone else is done with their vacation, say, and then return to 80%, without having their pay also having to seesaw, which is a *process*)
They don't fill it. Everyone knows it's because of the baby they have to do some extra work, but it's OK cause baby's are cute and it's not seen as some ego trip sabbatical where someone is trying to find himself on Fiji while others work their backs off.
I know they don't. That's was my point - the business can handle someone taking a few months off, they already do. As for the others working their backs off, what's your view on vacations? Am I allowed to go to Fiji using my PTO?
If you have an ok relationship with your manager, I don't think it would hurt to run it by them. I've seen several engineers pull this sort of thing off over the years. As a manager myself, if one of my engineers who has been with the company for a while came to me asking for this, I would definitely support them. In this climate, the alternative is that they will probably quit entirely which would be a much larger loss.
Back in the 1990s I worked at an investment bank that offered a paid 3 month sabbatical after 10 years of service, and then every 5 years afterwards. I don't quite remember the specifics but that was the gist of it. This was on top of normal PTO. They didn't tell you what to do with the time, but encouraged doing some deliberate personal growth.
This is standard in Australia (Long Service Leave). The exact terms change from state to state but usually similar to what you have described (e.g. 2 months after the first 10 years, then 1 month every 5 years).
Now thats some messed up environment to start with, I could do such thing in any of the companies I've worked in last 18 years (cca 6). The worst to expect would be no. Quitting in this case should be a nice plus if one has experience to offer on the market afterwards.
I myself asked and got it, went backpacking 2x in himalayas each time for 3 months, and came back a different, better person. Still riding the wave that experience brought. I dont care about money lost due to this, at the end its just a number that wouldnt change anything in my life. The younger to do this the better.
It helps, being healthy, but you are allmost never too old for travelling and new experiences.
Too many people are just existing and not living. Money is important, especially when you do not have it, but you cannot take your money with you, when you leave. And sure you can pass it on. But in my family a great drama is now happening, because of the money of the grandparents and how to split it up (one of them is even still alive).
My grandmother probably should have "wasted" more of it on her travels. (but she did travel until she could not walk anymore)
I think either of these extremes are too general to be helpful. Of course some companies are ok with that, it's something someone's likely to resign over (even if not immediately) so better to grant it if possible than lose someone and go through hiring and training cost to replace them.
Also 'would consider firing you on the spot' is very location dependent, that's not even legal everywhere. Even where it is surely it's a bit extreme - 'lol, no' will do.
