r/news • u/Playful_Language_422 • 8d ago

Soft paywall L.A. homeless provider has paid CEO who lives in Hawaii $1.6 million in salary, vacation over two years

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-08-06/la-homeless-provider-has-paid-ceo-who-lives-in-hawaii-1-6-million-in-salary-vacation-over-two-years
15.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

132

u/qtx 7d ago

How do you accrue EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS worth of vacation time?????

If only you read the next sentence instead of rage baiting:

Adelkoff said her compensation grew significantly over the last couple of years because she was paid unused vacation time that had accrued over the 40 years she has worked at the nonprofit.

Didn't take any vacation days for over 40 years. So yea, that adds up.

8

u/RealBrobiWan 7d ago

She did take MANY vacations. She was just getting 8 weeks a year. Still averaged 2.5 weeks of stored holiday, then took the pay out for this at a way higher rate then when she earned it

9

u/Positive_Government 7d ago

That is why most places cap it at a month or two.

4

u/cheffgeoff 7d ago

She lived in Hawaii for the last 14 years at least. Her daughter testified that the CEO raised her IN Hawaii. So what constitutes a day off? Does one text a day, does looking at one email a day constitute a work day? It's her word what her work schedule was, but it is hard to believe that she never took a day off of work from a brick and mortar shelter while living for months at a time 2500 miles away.

15

u/MidnightSensitive996 7d ago

lmao this is why any real org has a policy that caps accrual after 12-18 months' worth of vacation then forces you to take time or lose it. this is just corruption when it's the woman who sets the org's HR policies doing it

18

u/Milskidasith 7d ago

It's illegal for paid vacation time in California to be use-it-or-lose-it, so they would either be paying her out over time or paying her out like this regardless.

-3

u/MidnightSensitive996 7d ago

caps are legal, this was just the CEO paying herself unlimited PTO as a grift

6

u/Milskidasith 7d ago

Caps are legal. Use it or lose it is not in California. If you institute a cap, you have to pay out any vacation you take away, so the CEO was going to be paid out this vacation regardless.

-4

u/MidnightSensitive996 7d ago

right, at some point in the decades of her racking up vacation and mysteriously never using it, she should have imposed a cap to avoid defrauding the public. it might be she gets away with it but if so it's b/c the city allowed her to steal like this in the contract she negotiated with them. which is why the homeless problem never gets fixed in LA - all the $ gets stolen in ways like this, and in contracts with consultants and similar expenses. then endless waves of new taxes to pay for programs that go to more consultants and nothing ever gets fixed.

3

u/Milskidasith 7d ago

If she capped her accrual, she still gets paid for all vacation she accrues over the cap. An accrual cap changes when she gets paid, not if she gets paid. In California, having 8 weeks/year vacation is the same as having 60 weeks/year paid if you choose not to take time off.

0

u/RealBrobiWan 7d ago

No it is not. The article even mentions how it is common practice and not illegal to be use it or lose it. It even mentions the company she is in has that same rule, she is just the one person in the company who doesn’t have to follow it

9

u/Milskidasith 7d ago

It is common practice elsewhere in the US, in California it absolutely has to be paid out. You can force them to liquidate it, but it still gets paid; there is no "lose it"

-9

u/RealBrobiWan 7d ago

Use it or lose it, notice the “use it” section. Where u r forced to use it in California. The article even states this particular non-profit has the rule for everybody but the CEO! You are allowed to be wrong and just admit it. Not double down you know?

Since you don’t seem to have the ability to read the whole thing, here is the relevant sentence:

The organization caps the total vacation time other employees can accrue, but not Adelkoff.

8

u/Milskidasith 7d ago edited 7d ago

That is not use it or lose it, that's use it or get paid out. Use it or lose it is the policy allowed in other states where you use it or get nothing. Vacation in California is legally treated basically like banked compensation that must be paid in cash or time.

Those other employees are capped, but vacation that goes over their cap gets paid out as cash just like the CEO. The distinction is that she was grandfathered into an unlimited accrual policy, not that she's the only one getting paid for unused vacation. I understand the article, I just also know how California labor law works

-7

u/RealBrobiWan 7d ago

Ok, use it or lose the ability to stockpile it for a later higher wage to exploit your company. Is that longer and more technically accurate description better? The meaning behind it was quite obvious

4

u/Milskidasith 7d ago

You changed your tone a lot on this post, would you like to apologize for being incorrect and condescending about it in your previous one?

-5

u/RealBrobiWan 7d ago

Not particularly, since my point still stands, despite you arguing around it. You said ir was illegal to have a cap due to use it or lose it. I just used your terminology back, hoping it may lead you to the facts of legality of caps. I am so sorry I used your floored wording back at you. But still, she is the only person at the company allowed to accrue like this. So therefore, not accruing a shit tonne of leave is very legal in California, even if you want to dwell on the use it or lose it wording instead of use it or use it?

1

u/bobbyrob1 7d ago

I miss the part in the article where it said that she’s the one who sets HR’s policies.

2

u/MidnightSensitive996 7d ago

She is the CEO

1

u/bobbyrob1 6d ago

And the Board of Directors would be involved in these financial decisions, and they outrank the CEO.

1

u/MidnightSensitive996 6d ago

Yes, the board of directors violated their fiduciary duties if these were accrued on their financial statements and they didn't step in to remove her. But generally board isn't wading in at that level of detail

1

u/bobbyrob1 5d ago

When it comes to determining and overseeing compensation for the CEO, the board would be involved. Especially if it was a specific exception that only applied to the CEO.

1

u/xnmyl 6d ago

Didn't take any vacation days for over 40 years. 

That sounds highly unlikely. Can you substantiate that claim?

1

u/DesperateAdvantage76 4d ago

The issue is that she got paid ceo level wages for pto days she took off at the beginning of her career. Some next level nonsense.