81–90 of 351 posts
If you were explaining the world to an alien, it would be hard to justify the lack of diversity in working arrangements. I applaud any such non standard option in the labor market - may your office be full of good fits!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you won't be paid 100% for 40 hours, you will be paid 100% for 32 hours. And people that work 40 hours should get more than those that work 32 hours. By the way, it is common to be paid far less for 40 hours than you should receive as well, and plenty of people work unpaid overtime who would be happy just to work the 40 hours they get paid for. Salary negotiations are always tricky, especially if you don't know y…
> And people that work 40 hours should get more than those that work 32 hours. Someone who’s 25% less efficient at their job should get paid the same as someone else who’s more efficient?
The variables then are: your hourly rate, how many hours you are contracted for. I've never seen 'efficiency' in a labor contract as a metric, though, performance reviews may indicate that compared to your peergroup you are not performing well. In the end that then becomes an economics exercise, which in turn might lead to the company deciding that employing people for 32 hours is more efficient.
But until then they should pay for what they receive in terms of time spent on the job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% focussed 100% of the time is a strawman argument set up to fail, there's no killer tactic because it doesn't exist and no-one is arguing it does. You literally don't have to cram in the hours, you can just work less, enjoy a healthier work/life balance and still be productive. To argue otherwise is to suggest that we should all work 6 day weeks. If you accept that working 5 day weeks has benefits over 6 day week…
This is a fair, argument, but... People seem to put forth the argument that "people will work more efficiently if they work less hours" to counter the argument "if less time is being worked, then less work is being done, then costs/prices go up". And, while it may be (and probably is) true that efficiency will go up, it's almost certainly true that overall work will go down (because efficiency will not go up enough t…
That might be true, or it might not. It depends on how much efficiency goes up and how much buffer time people has, right? In many jobs people spene a non-trivial amount of time reading news, or in FB/Twitter/etc, so it def can be true that removing one hour of news+twitter yields the same productivity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not common to be paid 100% (aka for 40 hrs), though.
But you won't be paid 100% for 40 hours, you will be paid 100% for 32 hours. And people that work 40 hours should get more than those that work 32 hours. By the way, it is common to be paid far less for 40 hours than you should receive as well, and plenty of people work unpaid overtime who would be happy just to work the 40 hours they get paid for. Salary negotiations are always tricky, especially if you don't know y…
This is not how it works currently. You get paid your salary and are expected to do a minimum number of hours + any more reasonably required. You don't get extra for those extra hours in a salaried job so I don't see why you would if they reduced the hours required.
I still don’t understand the 100% as productive in 80% of the time. The math doesn’t check out there unless the expectation is people are working 10 hr days Mon-Thurs. Even in that scenario, not everyone has the stamina to execute at that pace and it also makes it hard to recruit anyone with a kid who needs to navigate school dropoffs/pickups etc.
I think a better question is how much of this slack time is necessary to reach the current productivity levels, and how much is just...slack?
[1] There are a lot of anecdote stories where people have a kid which limits their available time, and suddenly they are more productive than they have ever been during that small time window and get their startup off the ground etc...
This is part of a wider scheme in the UK whereby 60 firms and 3000 employees are piloting 4 day weeks. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/04/thousands-o... From the article: Employees from a wide range of businesses and charities are expected to take part in the scheme, which will run initially from June to December, including the Royal Society of Biology, the London-based brewing company Pressure Drop, a…
"Which country and city governments have a four-day work week?": https://buildremote.co/four-day-week/4-day-work-week-countri... I am surprised the lack of mention of Denmark, Sweden or the Netherlands. Most business persons I contact, normally only work 4 days a week.
That said, some of the last few weeks at the time of writing have in practise turned out to be four day weeks due to public holidays. Could this be what causes the confusion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scam is a bit strong. But I can see leadership wanting everyone back to office for whatever reasons, and out of fear of people leaving if they are forced to return to office, they came up with this 4 day work week thing to make it attractive enough for people to stay.
Scam is strong? They tell people they will spend 20% less time to work-related activities which as I said is a lie. Not only will they spend just as much time for work, it will be more unpleasant and more costly than working from home.
Tons of people would prefer a 4-day in-office work week over a 5-day remote work week. You may not, but there are many who do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you won't be paid 100% for 40 hours, you will be paid 100% for 32 hours. And people that work 40 hours should get more than those that work 32 hours. By the way, it is common to be paid far less for 40 hours than you should receive as well, and plenty of people work unpaid overtime who would be happy just to work the 40 hours they get paid for. Salary negotiations are always tricky, especially if you don't know y…
>> And people that work 40 hours should get more than those that work 32 hours. This is not how it works currently. You get paid your salary and are expected to do a minimum number of hours + any more reasonably required. You don't get extra for those extra hours in a salaried job so I don't see why you would if they reduced the hours required.
This is a geographically limited factoid, and even then lots of companies do pay overtime. But in those cases where they do not: I always wonder how those companies would respond if I treated them the way they treat their employees.
> You don't get extra for those extra hours in a salaried job so I don't see why you would if they reduced the hours required.
Because it is fair.
The obstinacy, arrogance, and stupidity of managers from these guys to Musk and Sandberg is incredibly disappointing.