3 ms·
Well, so this kind of thinking is really part of the problem. The number of hours you put into something should never matter. What matters is the value of the p
by Spartan-S63 6y ago
Well, so this kind of thinking is really part of the problem. The number of hours you put into something should never matter. What matters is the value of the productivity. We should be getting paid on the marginal value of our labor, not the minimum we're willing to bear. In addition, if the job can get done in 15 hours, then we should get paid the same, regardless. It's the conflation of hours to productivity that's destructive in this conversation. They're not the same, and a reduction in the work week should not be a salary-reducing event.
- colejohnson66 6y agoIsn’t that one of the points of a salaried job versus hourly? You’re paid the same regardless of how long it takes you. Many companies sometimes don’t care if it takes you 5 or 10 hours to do the task as long as it’s done by the deadline.
- Spartan-S63 6y agoIt totally is, but companies don’t treat it that way. Most expect you to work at least 40 hours at all times, especially in office situations, and if you have to work overtime, that’s on you. So, company’s are having their cake and eating it to, while salaried folks are more likely to be abused by employers.
- Fannon 6y agoThe problem lies in the "should" :) I do agree that the conflation of hours and productivity is a problem here. But it's a very common one and most people don't have the freedom. What I wanted to point out that there is not just one variable in play here. And there are some very practical problems which are not easy to solve. (Try explaining this to your employer and convincing him that this rule would indeed work for every employee he has. There are also jobs where hours and productivity are closer related. There are jobs where hours put in may be the best metric you have to measure output?)