|
You might be wrong.
I'm an employer and I'd rather have well rested and happy employees than overworked employees.
I even prefer for them to have a four day work week and put in no more than the necessary eight hours a day, unless it's absolutely necessary.
Work from home for at least half the time and flexible work hours is not a problem.
More hours == more work is pretty outdated, and countries like Japan, where people generally make long hours, show the contrary.
Of course, some of these things are not applicable for factory workers and other professions.
Anyway, even for those professions, if I had a boss like that I'd be out as soon as I got a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly agree with every one of your points. I think you replied to the wrong post. 
If not, I'd be curious to understand what it is I've said you're disagreeing with.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm disagreeing with this part "If employers could get us to put in more hours, if it weren't for those pesky labor laws, most absolutely would put us through the ringer without hesitation." 
I think more and more employers are well aware that employees have choices and if you're not a good employer you'll lose employees quickly and also that a happy employee is a good employee.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'll grant you that. Most employers that people like to work for agree with you, they'd rather have happy employees even if it means they work fewer (but more productive) hours.
But there are employers, throughout the entire world, who only look at the bottom line as it affects their own paycheck/bonus. And that, IMO, should be strongly discouraged.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I think more and more employers are well aware that employees have choices and if you're not a good employer you'll lose employees quickly
Not sure I agree with the phrasing of that.
Is it possible that 10% used to understand that (as a significant factor) and 15% do now? Perhaps. But I haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise.
I can remember reading decades ago that it was well understood that there was an actual cost when employees turn over. But I don't see that resulting in actual changes any more now than in the past.
Look at the tech layoffs in the last 2 years which were the direct result of missteps by C level executives. Layoffs of course cause a huge hit on morale.
Look at some of the more public strikes over the summer where the companies involved had had very profitable years yet their public viewpoints do not acknowledge that at all.
Even in the tech industry companies (executives) still look at employees an interchangeable cogs. Outside the tech industry that is probably more prevalent.
And probably a lot of that is intentional in that they just do not think about it. At one company they wanted to promote this to employees by retaining a company that determined that the total compensation that the company paid was 5% above average. So all employees, salaries and benefits. They needed to do this because they had just altered the way employees were paid and many were taking home less than they had been.
|
|
|
|
|
What I hear him not saying is "I'm not making enough money. Do the work of two people, but I'll pay you as one person so I can get more rich!" How greedy does one person need to be?
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
This.
I "had something to prove" back in my early days, so I put in the hours, but at some point you have to be able to see when you're only doing that to line the owner's pockets, at your own health's expense.
Besides - if 70 hours of work per week is to be expected as the norm, then I'd expect to be paid for that number of hours to be the norm as well. Was anything mentioned about that? Otherwise it's just a rallying cry to "make me richer, you slaves".
Heck I'm not even talking about getting paid 1.5x or 2x for overtime. Just getting paid at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree, follow the money and you will see, more often than not, how and why decisions are made.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
When the CEO and other management cut their own hourly pay by almost half, then they can ask workers to do the same. That money can go to paying overtime.
Quality of work plummets when people are working so many hours on a regular basis. They end up creating so many problems that the net benefit goes negative. All for the schadenfreude and ego boost of seeing your workers suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Kemner wrote: When the CEO and other management cut their own hourly pay by almost half
When they cut their income from the company to a much lower rate.
That is different than how much they get paid.
There are quite a few CEOs (and this might be one) that basically do not get 'paid' a rate. Rather they get stock. Options or just the ownership which goes up as the stock does.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. I was originally going to say "total compensation" but simplified it.
|
|
|
|
|
No. As a CIO I'd rather my staff work 40 hours a week and not burn themselves out.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: ... need to work 70 hours a week to succeed ...
in making him even more rich than he already is.
You'll spend your younger years believing that bullshit, then wake up one day and realize you've been working your ass into an early grave for sh*t pay just to make him richer.
|
|
|
|
|
Did he also state that companies should pay them for working 70 hours a week?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. If you not gifted in one way or the other, you need to put in hours to make it. To riches, that is.
If you can be happy with less, then it is better to be happy.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
aaahhhh yes; modern slavery.
I would argue that after 35/40 hours, or even less, you stop being productive.
So you have a bunch of employees showing up for work and having low productivity and be at the office just for show.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: I would argue that after 35/40 hours, or even less, you stop being productive.
That's also a huge part of it. That figure wasn't chosen at random.
At this stage in my life, I feel like I have nothing else to prove to anyone. That's not to say won't do some crunch time if I really, really, REALLY have to, but I'm not gonna make a habit of it, that's for sure.
After some amount of time, working extra hours becomes counterproductive. You end up reworking the mistakes you made when you were just too damned tired to think straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Because they work for him?
|
|
|
|
|
The big question is.. are they willing to pay for those hours?
|
|
|
|
|
I donot agree, the 70 hour work week is the way of slavery and low self esteem.
If so little is left of an employees time, where is the scope for self education, introspection, family life, illness and recovery.
I know for a fact that his company Infosys is consistently one of the lowest paying organizations in the country. Even startups pay better. I know people who take a job there only for the tag and leave it in about a year. The offers that come to them after the stint are the ones that actually correspond to market reality.
Then and only then, the pay actually corresponds to what an average engineering student earns as first choice.
However, again, he has a point in that students who graduate from our lower and middle education tiers have abysmal skills. Skills that we would not even see in a 8th standard passout from a good Institute. The professional, communication, and attitude skills are so bad that they need to train for an additional 2 years to catch up. And this is pure adult learning. These employees are the ones who need 70 hr weeks to just catch up to the whole wide world.
I've interviewed so many and found them to be so lacking in basic skills like connecting to a database and getting some data out of it. Designing an employee database and querying for some salary data. Nothing magic, just run of the mill humdrum CRUD stuff.
And again, I bet he wouldn't have worked that long except for his first decade. Maybe not even that long. Pure BS and virtue signalling.
Paras Parmar
|
|
|
|
|
Paras Parmar wrote: I've interviewed so many and found them to be so lacking in basic skills like connecting to a database and getting some data out of it. Designing an employee database and querying for some salary data. Nothing magic, just run of the mill humdrum CRUD stuff.
I would fail in that too, because I have used three or four times in my life, and that was during studies to pass the exam.
But I am pretty sure that if I go to any industry production line in the world, I will be able to win some decimals if not several seconds in the process what at the end of the year is a huge performance boost. Or improve your quality vision systems, or... or... or...
The right question is not if the candidate fail to answer a concrete question / topic or not, the right question is, is he willing to learn and to improve his skills?
That's why when confronted with something I didn't know I have always answered: NOW, I can't do that. But if I get a chance and a couple of weeks, I will learn it.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
(Working long != working hard) && (working long != working productively)
No need to say more.
Edit: Added the second term due to the answer below.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 1-Nov-23 9:51am.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Woirking long != working hard.
Concisely stated!
I will add "Nor working productively".
Many moons ago the team I was on had a young guy who worked 70 hours a week, while everyone else worked 45-50. Management repeatedly praised him for his effort.
The sad fact was that he couldn't get his work done in the same time as everyone else, and had to work ridiculous hours to keep up.
|
|
|
|
|
BryanFazekas wrote: I will add "Nor working productively".
Good point
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Does that include commuting? I consider it (part of) "work"; unproductive work .... which makes most people's days pretty long.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
