4 ms·

While I think this might be a good step in production work, it might be killing for firms in knowledge intensive industries. When this happens the first to move

by wjnc 7y ago

While I think this might be a good step in production work, it might be killing for firms in knowledge intensive industries. When this happens the first to move are the still employable and affordable youths. So the average age and salary might go up after a move like this. In the long run older firms get more trouble hiring youthful people, etc. Source: an interesting discussion with a union bargainer that was actually dismayed that young people disliked working hour reductions even though the firm promised no layoffs in return. My take away is that for some employees an honest severance package is better than working hours reduction.

cranium 7y ago
I'm not certain it would be bad for knowledge intensive industries. My reasoning is that people would use their time more wisely and get more done. As for young people (also affects older), I think the implication `more time working => more done` is still deeply ingrained even when there are arguments against it[1]. I do agree that having forced off-time can be distressing to some people. Some may like to think they are indispensable to run the company, and suddenly they feel betrayed because their company doesn't need them working at 100%. Or they are optimistic and think the grass is greener elsewhere. Or... Anyway, I think it would be interesting to see studies of """productivity""" when employees are forced to do part-time work. Based on what I know, I wouldn't too surprised to see good social benefits (but it doesn't mean everybody would thrive). [1] A simple search here on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=long+hours https://hn.algolia.com/?q=long+hours
bluGill 7y ago
Unions generally work for those who have been there the longest. The young workers don't like hour cuts when they see people who have been there for years not have to take the same cuts. Worse, when you are young it is harder to have the required savings in place. My bank won't accept a lesser house payment - if I have been there for 10 years inflation has indirectly made my house payment less so I can afford to live on less income, which benefits the older worker over the younger. (there are lots of bills in life, some do hit older workers more and I'm intentionally not talking about them)
xondono 7y ago
I've actually seen the opposite of that, on medium/small firms (at least the ones I've worked on) when hard times hit the first to go down are the senior positions (except those close to management) and they're substituted with way cheaper out-of-college people.
Accujack 7y ago
Google "dead sea effect" for some interesting discussion of this sort of thing. Many companies end up with a majority of employees with no mobility, and the culture in those workplaces suffers because of this.

by wjnc 7y ago

cranium 7y ago

I'm not certain it would be bad for knowledge intensive industries. My reasoning is that people would use their time more wisely and get more done. As for young people (also affects older), I think the implication `more time working => more done` is still deeply ingrained even when there are arguments against it[1]. I do agree that having forced off-time can be distressing to some people. Some may like to think they are indispensable to run the company, and suddenly they feel betrayed because their company doesn't need them working at 100%. Or they are optimistic and think the grass is greener elsewhere. Or... Anyway, I think it would be interesting to see studies of """productivity""" when employees are forced to do part-time work. Based on what I know, I wouldn't too surprised to see good social benefits (but it doesn't mean everybody would thrive). [1] A simple search here on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=long+hours https://hn.algolia.com/?q=long+hours

bluGill 7y ago

Unions generally work for those who have been there the longest. The young workers don't like hour cuts when they see people who have been there for years not have to take the same cuts. Worse, when you are young it is harder to have the required savings in place. My bank won't accept a lesser house payment - if I have been there for 10 years inflation has indirectly made my house payment less so I can afford to live on less income, which benefits the older worker over the younger. (there are lots of bills in life, some do hit older workers more and I'm intentionally not talking about them)

xondono 7y ago

I've actually seen the opposite of that, on medium/small firms (at least the ones I've worked on) when hard times hit the first to go down are the senior positions (except those close to management) and they're substituted with way cheaper out-of-college people.

Accujack 7y ago

Google "dead sea effect" for some interesting discussion of this sort of thing. Many companies end up with a majority of employees with no mobility, and the culture in those workplaces suffers because of this.