> We are a start up working hard to launch so it wouldn't work for us. I read this as: "we've advertised this as full time, but really it's 24/7" I'm not sure

> We are a start up working hard to launch so it wouldn't work for us. I read this as: "we've advertised this as full time, but really it's 24/7" I'm not sure that's a fair reading. I'm sure there are places that are like that, but I think that for a lot of places a more accurate read is "we already have more work to do than people to do it; we're addressing that by actively hiring (rather than by overworking people); one of our biggest challenges right now is hiring fast enough." Given that hiring is a major challenge, I'm not surprised that it doesn't seem like a good play to take 80% of the capacity for the same effort of hiring. Yeah, yeah, diminishing returns, so you're probably losing less than 20% productivity. But I'd be shocked if on average it's as low as the 5% that one commenter claims (or even negative as another commenter claims. I figure 20% is still "in the ball park". It'd be worth it if offering it as a perk makes the organization 25% better at hiring. And I believe that it can help, but I'm not sure it can help 25%. ---- > This is also due to Parkinson’s Law. Parkinson's law states that "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion". In a lot of organizations, that does indeed apply. But in some organizations, especially startups, the situation is "here's a list of work that we'll never get to, get through as much as you can in the time available"; there's no spare time for work to expand in to. Now, you still get diminishing returns on more hours worked. But not as bad in some organizations as in others. ---- But I'm just an IC, and I haven't talked about this with leadership, so what do I know?