4 ms·

> The average employee is lucky to be productive 70% of the time. 2.5 hours a week is only 6% of a 40 hour week. I think it is a great use of time. I don't kno

by korzun 9y ago

> The average employee is lucky to be productive 70% of the time. 2.5 hours a week is only 6% of a 40 hour week. I think it is a great use of time. I don't know where you are pulling those numbers from, but you are assuming that 6% magically comes out from the 'unproductive' time without factoring in the take home homework and other things that blow up the 2.5-hour mark. It's not a static number and can't be used to make those claims. The 2.5 hours will also scale up with the number of participants, 20 employees who are committing 2.5 each week (at very, very minimum) is a loss of 50 hours per week. I can go even further and add people who did not attend the workshop but felt like they are now entitled to a 2.5-hour break of some sort (and rightfully so). If the company can cut more than 50+ hours a week and still function, more power to them. Usually, that only lasts until the finance guys need to start cutting costs to improve the bottom line.

parennoob 9y ago
> take home homework and other things that blow up the 2.5-hour mark I would think "take home" implies you take it home, i.e. do it in your own time. I don't know what your undefined "other things" are. > The 2.5 hours will also scale up with the number of participants, 20 employees who are committing 2.5 each week (at very, very minimum) is a loss of 50 hours per week. It is this sort of thinking that is super counterproductive. Even if one of those employees learns something simple, like how to programmatically create CSV files and import them into Excel, they will have saved thousands of man-hours. You can't nickel-and-dime people's time like this. Philosophies like yours tend to end up with timing people's bathroom breaks and scathing articles in the newspaper; rarely successful companies.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Also, I have a very simple policy: I'm as strict about work hours as my employer is. You want 40 hours, butts-in-seats, timed breaks? Fine, I'm circular filing that idea that's going to save you multiples of my salary each year because I thought of it at home during off-hours, and you weren't paying me for that time.
  - aisofteng 9y ago
    You sound awful to work with. It makes me appreciate how lucky I am to work someplace where everyone has good attitudes towards each other and their workplace.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      I'm sorry, that's based on what? If you honestly think me responding to a terrible work environment by refusing to do work outside of work hours or go above and beyond for the company makes me a bad coworker, I think you have a very distorted view of workplace relationships.
    - tomelders 9y ago
      Gotta side with SomeStupidPoint here. If an employer is going to whine about any deviation from the standard working hours on my part, then all extracurricular activity stops. You get the hours exactly and nothing more. It doesn't matter when someone does their work. It matters that they did it, and did it well. Poisoning the water because someone is consitebtly 10 minutes late every morning is a signal to me that it's time to move on.
  - mikekchar 9y ago
    I am exactly the opposite. What you are saying (as far as I can tell) is "If management is going to be petty and stupid, then I am too". I think it is smart to avoid being taken advantage of, but I think what you are actually doing is enabling your management's stupid behaviour. If both sides have a hard line behaviour, it will never change. Instead, I recommend showing the advantages of flexibility. "I worked overtime to give you this thing which would not have been possible under your rules, how about cutting me some slack as a reward?" Somebody has to budge first. Now, if they are only interested in sucking up as much of your time as possible and paying you as little as possible -- then they are being abusive. As in any abusive relationship, your top priority should be to get the heck out of there. As a fall back position, of course, you should protect yourself as much as possible, but having an a priori position of being just as petty as your boss will really only result in unhappiness for everyone.
throwaway2016a 9y ago
> I don't know where you are pulling those numbers from, but you are assuming that 6% magically comes out from the 'unproductive' time without factoring in the take home homework and other things that blow up the 2.5-hour mark. I am pulling that number for 7 years of management experience and talking with other people with similar experience. And I don't know for sure it will come from unproductive time but I feel comfortable saying that if the teacher is any good they will be very engaged during that 2.5 hours because it is so different than what they do day to day. But my hunch is it will come from the unproductive time. Studies have shows that shrinking the work week does not mean employees do less work. They do the same amount of work more efficiently.[1] People will stretch to fill the allotted time. And if they know that they don't have as much time they will work to compensate. > The 2.5 hours will also scale up with the number of participants, 20 employees who are committing 2.5 each week (at very, very minimum) is a loss of 50 hours per week. The company is getting concrete value from that. Having cross discipline knowledge allows teams to communicate more effectively, communicate with customers better, and appreciate other job functions more. Never-mind as another person wrote they might be able to automate the tedious parts of their job using scripts they learned how to write. But assuming for a second you are right and the ROI is negative. The ROI of having them browsing Facebook during that time is even more negative. > I can go even further and add people who did not attend the workshop but felt like they are now entitled to a 2.5-hour break of some sort (and rightfully so). Absolutely not true at all. These people are not on a break. They are learning. It is work. A different kind of work than they do day in and day out sure but still work. Not only that but they are getting a free (to them) education. Which has a predictable value on the market (look at the cost of a code bootcamp or college credit) I'm not following the logic: someone is getting training so I deserve to work less? If I was in that scenario I wouldn't demand a 2.5 break. I'd demand 2.5 of training because I know how valuable that is. I have a word for people who slack off for two hours while their peers are hard at work learning a valuable new skill: fired. I have never heard of anyone putting so little value on training. You talk like they are playing foosball for 2.5 hours. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/business/international/in-sweden-an-experiment-turns-shorter-workdays-into-bigger-gains.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/business/international/in...
- th4dv 9y ago

by korzun 9y ago

parennoob 9y ago

> take home homework and other things that blow up the 2.5-hour mark I would think "take home" implies you take it home, i.e. do it in your own time. I don't know what your undefined "other things" are. > The 2.5 hours will also scale up with the number of participants, 20 employees who are committing 2.5 each week (at very, very minimum) is a loss of 50 hours per week. It is this sort of thinking that is super counterproductive. Even if one of those employees learns something simple, like how to programmatically create CSV files and import them into Excel, they will have saved thousands of man-hours. You can't nickel-and-dime people's time like this. Philosophies like yours tend to end up with timing people's bathroom breaks and scathing articles in the newspaper; rarely successful companies.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Also, I have a very simple policy: I'm as strict about work hours as my employer is. You want 40 hours, butts-in-seats, timed breaks? Fine, I'm circular filing that idea that's going to save you multiples of my salary each year because I thought of it at home during off-hours, and you weren't paying me for that time.
- aisofteng 9y ago
  You sound awful to work with. It makes me appreciate how lucky I am to work someplace where everyone has good attitudes towards each other and their workplace.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    I'm sorry, that's based on what? If you honestly think me responding to a terrible work environment by refusing to do work outside of work hours or go above and beyond for the company makes me a bad coworker, I think you have a very distorted view of workplace relationships.
  - tomelders 9y ago
    Gotta side with SomeStupidPoint here. If an employer is going to whine about any deviation from the standard working hours on my part, then all extracurricular activity stops. You get the hours exactly and nothing more. It doesn't matter when someone does their work. It matters that they did it, and did it well. Poisoning the water because someone is consitebtly 10 minutes late every morning is a signal to me that it's time to move on.
- mikekchar 9y ago
  I am exactly the opposite. What you are saying (as far as I can tell) is "If management is going to be petty and stupid, then I am too". I think it is smart to avoid being taken advantage of, but I think what you are actually doing is enabling your management's stupid behaviour. If both sides have a hard line behaviour, it will never change. Instead, I recommend showing the advantages of flexibility. "I worked overtime to give you this thing which would not have been possible under your rules, how about cutting me some slack as a reward?" Somebody has to budge first. Now, if they are only interested in sucking up as much of your time as possible and paying you as little as possible -- then they are being abusive. As in any abusive relationship, your top priority should be to get the heck out of there. As a fall back position, of course, you should protect yourself as much as possible, but having an a priori position of being just as petty as your boss will really only result in unhappiness for everyone.

throwaway2016a 9y ago

> I don't know where you are pulling those numbers from, but you are assuming that 6% magically comes out from the 'unproductive' time without factoring in the take home homework and other things that blow up the 2.5-hour mark. I am pulling that number for 7 years of management experience and talking with other people with similar experience. And I don't know for sure it will come from unproductive time but I feel comfortable saying that if the teacher is any good they will be very engaged during that 2.5 hours because it is so different than what they do day to day. But my hunch is it will come from the unproductive time. Studies have shows that shrinking the work week does not mean employees do less work. They do the same amount of work more efficiently.[1] People will stretch to fill the allotted time. And if they know that they don't have as much time they will work to compensate. > The 2.5 hours will also scale up with the number of participants, 20 employees who are committing 2.5 each week (at very, very minimum) is a loss of 50 hours per week. The company is getting concrete value from that. Having cross discipline knowledge allows teams to communicate more effectively, communicate with customers better, and appreciate other job functions more. Never-mind as another person wrote they might be able to automate the tedious parts of their job using scripts they learned how to write. But assuming for a second you are right and the ROI is negative. The ROI of having them browsing Facebook during that time is even more negative. > I can go even further and add people who did not attend the workshop but felt like they are now entitled to a 2.5-hour break of some sort (and rightfully so). Absolutely not true at all. These people are not on a break. They are learning. It is work. A different kind of work than they do day in and day out sure but still work. Not only that but they are getting a free (to them) education. Which has a predictable value on the market (look at the cost of a code bootcamp or college credit) I'm not following the logic: someone is getting training so I deserve to work less? If I was in that scenario I wouldn't demand a 2.5 break. I'd demand 2.5 of training because I know how valuable that is. I have a word for people who slack off for two hours while their peers are hard at work learning a valuable new skill: fired. I have never heard of anyone putting so little value on training. You talk like they are playing foosball for 2.5 hours. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/business/international/in-sweden-an-experiment-turns-shorter-workdays-into-bigger-gains.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/business/international/in...

th4dv 9y ago