I've worked in places that gave particular allowances for certain things and while I appreciate the gesture my view tends to be just give me cash and let me work out what to do with it.
There are some exceptions to this (pensions mainly) but I don't think it's for a company to say how someone should spend their time off or their money and effectively penalise them if it's not in the prescribed manner.
Yes holidays are good for relieving stress but so is paying down a mortgage or paying of debt for instance. What is best for the individual is probably best decided by the individual.
I think the money is meant as an incentive for employees to stay healthy. Like handing out free fruits or gym memberships. So just giving the employees the money and let them decide what to do with it would be counterproductive.
Although maybe there should be some research. If more pay automatically makes people go to the gym more often, maybe it would be ok...
I guess I don't see a necessary connection between taking a trip somewhere and health. I do see the advantages of disconnecting from work/email for 30 days. But why do I have to fly to Hawaii or Europe or something to do that? Can't I take 30 days off to putter around my house, reconnect with friends/family in the area I haven't seen enough recently, read a few books, participate more in local cultural activities I neglect due to being too busy, etc.? To me, the most relaxing vacation is taking time for myself in my hometown, with people I know.
I find vacations sometimes interesting and educational (see other societies, etc.), but not generally relaxing. To me, packing, flying places, and living in hotels is a bit stressful. To some extent, it actually makes me feel more busy, because it's one more thing, along with work, that gets in the way of me spending more time on the local stuff I'd like to spend more time on.
What if you have a situation where someone has debts. Is their mental health (which is what you're talking about with a holiday rather than physical health) more significantly improved by paying down their credit card by $7500 than a holiday?
Or someone who wants to spend their holiday time with an old or terminally ill relative (which was my situation a few years back)?
Or what if someone just enjoys taking time off to do something entirely different but at home - say DIY or some other hobby? Why should they be penalised because their idea of a holiday is different?
Well that is what I mean by research - perhaps simply giving people more money will make them happier than giving incentives for specific stuff. But the original idea for the company is to benefit indirectly from the payments (fitter, happier employees), so I assumed the additional payments should be justified like that.
Of course it could also lead to resentment: "if you can afford to pay me x$ for gym and holidays, why can't you afford to pay me a higher salary". Who knows?
Actually happiness research seems to indicate that spending money on experiences rather than stuff (for example) is a good idea. But I am not sure if it follows that it still works if you make people spend on experiences instead of stuff.
From the article: "For others, it might be hanging on the couch, eating Taco Bell and watching bad cable all week."
It doesn't sound like FullContact requires you to use the money in any particular way, they just won't give it to you unless you take a "vacation" (where vacation may be staying at home working on your hobby).
If it was a bonus paid on taking all your vacation in a year I'd be more in favour of that but it seems overkill. Really, just stop letting people into the office if they won't take it...
They are just handing over the cash, I think. The only "condition" of the deal is that people aren't working, though I think Rule #1 (You MUST go on vacation!) is a bit vague. There's a slide later on that explicitly mentions the possibility of lousing around on the couch instead of doing anything special, so I don't think they literally mean that you have to go on vacation, just that you have to take the time off and not be at work.
More like "Here's $7500 for not showing up to work for the next week," not "Here's $7500 that you can only use on a preselected and approved subset of suitably frivolous and relaxing activities". I'd be very against the latter, too.
There are some exceptions to this (pensions mainly) but I don't think it's for a company to say how someone should spend their time off or their money and effectively penalise them if it's not in the prescribed manner.
Yes holidays are good for relieving stress but so is paying down a mortgage or paying of debt for instance. What is best for the individual is probably best decided by the individual.