I've worked for employers with both types of leave policies, in multiple countries with very different labor laws and practices, and in my limited experience what matters is the company culture, not the HR policy or the law.
When I was a U.S. Federal employee, annual leave was quantified and very generous. It was also entirely hypothetical because no one was ever allowed to take more than a fraction of accumulated leave. It was made clear that requesting more than a few days at a time, or aspiring to use more than a fraction of your annual leave before it disappeared at the end of the year, was bad form. As I was leaving that position, I was told that (1) no I won't be allowed to take my accumulated leave before it expires, and (2) the effective date of my departure would be right after the use-it-or-lose-it cutoff specifically so they won't have to pay me its cash equivalent. Which tells you a lot about labor relations there and why I left.
My current employer switched from quantified to unlimited leave a couple of years ago. Here, supervisors have always encouraged employees to take leave, and that did not change.
So all this hand wringing over which policy is better seems to me to be misplaced. A good employer will do the right thing, and a bad employer will screw you, whatever the FAM or the HR manual says.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
