I'm curious to know if anyone still requires their employees to take two consecutive weeks vacation. Thanks!

Yes...and I would like to know some convincing arguments to present for changing that policy...has anyone been able to plead successfully the case with an employer?

I know of no banks in our area still requiring 2 consecutive weeks of vacation.

We do not require two consecutive weeks.

Mike Baker - I think dual control, rotating duties and automation/efficiency has eliminated the need here. I'd like to know what the arguments are for keeping it - other than "We've always done it that way". I think part of it used to be "It will take two weeks for any fraudulant checks to clear". Everything is done so much faster/efficiently these days, I think you would find fraud within one week. Also, I think you should look at the people who never take a day off - those are the ones who are usually up to no good.

If you search internal controls and vacation in each regulator's publications you will find the current thinking on this topic (vacation, job rotation, etc).

They all still discuss it. If you can present a risk assessment and better controls you may find your process acceptable.

Thanks! I just wasn't in the mood to find that thread where I put all of the links.

I looked at the links provided in that thread. I agree they all state 2 weeks, but the sad thing is how old they are. The FDIC was published in 2005, the OCC in 2001, and the FED in 1996. So much has changed since then, things are clearing so much faster, it's a shame the regulators have not updated this. IMHO, I still think one week would be long enough to uncover fraud, but you would have a tough time fighting the regulators on this.

They all still cover this in exams. If you can illustrate you have adequate controls, you have a case to make.

If not, then you have a tough road trying to state why you don't need people away from their jobs.

Clearing isn't everything.

Just to add on to Kathleen B's thoughts:

For example, if you only have one AP clerk in your bank and he takes one week vacation and nobody else pays the payables for that week (they hold off on getting paid until the following week when he returns), then you may have an issue with examiners.

Dumbed down I know, but you get the point.

Thanks for your input!

The 2 week vacation was also dictated by most bonding companies. I believe most banks have requested a waiver from their bonding company. You might check with your bonding company to see if they require a waiver for changing from 2 weeks to 1 week.

How about prohibiting access while ON vacation? So often, because of many employees being able to work remotely, some still access their work computers while on vacation. How would that be monitored or controlled - and (silly question) should it be?

Some banks actually take away access, such as ability to remotely sign on to systems, giving it back upon return to work. If an employee can conduct transactions remotely that would allow them to commit a fraud while away, then yes such access should be controlled or you will have a huge hole in your presumed control.

Agreed - thanks!

Policy states Two Weeks, with exceptions approved by CEO. That has always satisfied the examiner's.
We take away all access, including keys.

After 30 years here at the bank, we finally went from two weeks to one week. As auditor, I abstained from voting, but felt that with our current system, any problems or discrepancies would show up in one week. It's also easier to cover positions for one week rather than two. The FDIC mentioned it at our last exam, but were okay with it. I find out who's on vacation and try to get into their area during that time - which the examiner's also liked (for a change).

Our state's banking code requires us to have 5 consecutive days and have someone else performing thier tasks while they are out. We do monitor the 5 consecutive days but we are just not at the point in most departments where someone else does all of the tasks.

During our last FRB exam, this was brought up and we were required to change our policy in accordance with the 1996 supervisory guidelines. This requires identifying key positions, and for all those positions the individuals have to take 2 weeks absence from their job functions. Something to consider if you are an FRB regulated bank.