3 ms·

Would you agree then that those employees are systemically set up to be forced out?

• kcplate 5y ago
  No. I think it depends on the situation and people involved. If you intend by working 32 hours instead of 40 hours to deliver only 80% value to your org, you would be at a disadvantage. If that extra 8 hours off has value to you, you will likely make sure your employer stays happy and maximize your value for that 32 hours you work. Conversely, if that 8 hours of payroll savings is needed for them, they will likely provide some grace during evaluation. Now if you are an exempt salaried employee, all bets are off. Whether you work 20 hours or 80, you get paid the same and are expected to deliver 100% value.
  • tolbish 5y ago
    > If you intend by working 32 hours instead of 40 hours to deliver only 80% value to your org, you would be at a disadvantage. Well you would be delivering 100% of the possible value you could in 80% of the time. The same as someone who works 6 days a week would have a comparably higher output than their peers working 5 days. Are the employees who work 48 or more hours a week being compared to those who work 40 hours as well?
    • kcplate 5y ago
      You might be delivering 100% or you might not. You might be more productive at 32 than 40. It’s not necessarily linear. At the end of the day you need to provide a perceived value beyond whatever your rate of comp At 48 hours you have a similar situation, if you are hourly those 8 hours cost the company an extra 50% per hour so you better be providing appropriate value for the overtime rate they are paying you.