17 ms·

The OP notes they’re referring explicitly to jobs with a 5 day work week, so your comments re: service industry, etc. are valid, they’re already excluded. Irra

The OP notes they’re referring explicitly to jobs with a 5 day work week, so your comments re: service industry, etc. are valid, they’re already excluded. Irrational might not be the right word; arbitrary is pretty accurate, though. If productivity and output change minimally, why should expectations or pay? Let’s be honest, the typical 5-day office job work week the OP is referencing has a LOT of downtime.

soperj 4y ago
> has a LOT of downtime the way I look at it, I'm being paid for being available during those work hours, not necessarily doing work during all those work hours.
- grog454 4y ago
  Ok, but not every job is like this. A lot of my communication is done asynchronously already. I'm paid 95% for productivity and 5% for availability.
  - thunky 4y ago
    Say you're hyper productive and can accomplish your job in only one hour per week, do you think you should still be entitled to your full salary?
    - grog454 4y ago
      Yes. That's how it's worked for the ~7 years I worked for myself. I'm currently working a full time remote job in addition to managing my own company, and there it's more like 75/25 productivity/availability. Unless I'm on call, then its flipped. If I was working retail, I suppose it'd be more like 5/95 productivity/availability.
      - thunky 4y ago
        That's great. I commented elsehwere that I think it's all good as long as the arrangement between the employer and employee is honest. Is your full time remote employer aware that you're not really "full time"?
        grog454 4y ago
        What makes me not full time? Particularly if I'm producing the same amount as everyone else? The teams I work with span 9 timezones collectively, and that's when they're not traveling.
        thunky 4y ago
        > What makes me not full time? Because "full time" measures time, not productivity: From Google: occupying or using the whole of the usual working day or week From Merriam-Webster: the amount of time considered the normal or standard amount for working during a given period From Oxford: for all the hours of a week during which people normally work or study, rather than just for a part of it The only way this is a problem is if you think you're getting paid by your output and your employer thinks they're paying you for your (full) time. The easy way to test if this is to check with your employer to make sure they know you actually work 10 to 30 hrs per week and the rest of the time you're on call. If they know and they're good with it, then great there's no problem. If you're not comfortable telling them then that's a problem. In that case you would effectively be a "mouse jiggler".
        grog454 4y ago
        My employer collects "screen time" based metrics and working hours aren't part of my employment agreement. This is beside the point. Let's look at it another way. Why do you think someone who spends a majority of their assigned working hours eating, shitting, and flirting with the receptionist should earn the same compensation as someone who spends 100% of their working hours doing things that are the in their job description? When I was naive, I tolerated being the latter in a job with many of the former. This was a contributing factor in deciding to work for myself. Now, if you want me to produce more than my coworkers that's fine, but I'll have to be compensated more.
    - piva00 4y ago
      Am I giving a multiple of my salary returned as value to my employer in that case? If so then yes, the employer is exploiting my work (knowledge, skills, productivity, etc.) and earning a good profit on it, I should be entitled to keep my share of this agreement, no matter how many hours I worked, I've produced the expected value out of those hours. Employers pay for productivity and the value generated by employees, not hours in a seat. That mindset is exactly the mindset of an oppressed labour force, as workers we aren't being paid so employers can get their share of hours of my life, we are being paid to generate value, it shouldn't really matter if that value is created in 1h or 40h per week, for the employer the result is the same.
      - thunky 4y ago
        While I agree with you in principle that a 40h week is arbitrary and ridiculous... > Employers pay for productivity and the value generated by employees, not hours in a seat. I'm not sure many employers see it that way. If they do, that's great. But I would guess that most think they should be getting 40 hrs worth of "work" out of their employees. What I imagine happens too frequently is that the employee hides the fact that they're actually working < 40 hrs a week, so the relationship with their employer is dishonest. That's why products like "mouse jigglers" exist, so employees can fool their employer.
        Bakary 4y ago
        The entire employer-employee relationship is predicated on power imbalances specific to our economic and legal system, so how tragic is mouse jiggling, really?
        thunky 4y ago
        "tragic" is a bit dramatic. It's just dishonest and a sign of dysfunction. I'm sorry but I'm not going to shed a tear for people that defraud their employer because they think they're more valuable than everyone else. Also just think of what a luxury it is to have the opportunity to fake it. People that do "real" work don't have that opportunity. Imagine a drive thru worker posing a dummy in the window.

soperj 4y ago

> has a LOT of downtime the way I look at it, I'm being paid for being available during those work hours, not necessarily doing work during all those work hours.

grog454 4y ago
Ok, but not every job is like this. A lot of my communication is done asynchronously already. I'm paid 95% for productivity and 5% for availability.
- thunky 4y ago
  Say you're hyper productive and can accomplish your job in only one hour per week, do you think you should still be entitled to your full salary?
  - grog454 4y ago
    Yes. That's how it's worked for the ~7 years I worked for myself. I'm currently working a full time remote job in addition to managing my own company, and there it's more like 75/25 productivity/availability. Unless I'm on call, then its flipped. If I was working retail, I suppose it'd be more like 5/95 productivity/availability.
    - thunky 4y ago
      That's great. I commented elsehwere that I think it's all good as long as the arrangement between the employer and employee is honest. Is your full time remote employer aware that you're not really "full time"?
      - grog454 4y ago
        What makes me not full time? Particularly if I'm producing the same amount as everyone else? The teams I work with span 9 timezones collectively, and that's when they're not traveling.
        thunky 4y ago
        > What makes me not full time? Because "full time" measures time, not productivity: From Google: occupying or using the whole of the usual working day or week From Merriam-Webster: the amount of time considered the normal or standard amount for working during a given period From Oxford: for all the hours of a week during which people normally work or study, rather than just for a part of it The only way this is a problem is if you think you're getting paid by your output and your employer thinks they're paying you for your (full) time. The easy way to test if this is to check with your employer to make sure they know you actually work 10 to 30 hrs per week and the rest of the time you're on call. If they know and they're good with it, then great there's no problem. If you're not comfortable telling them then that's a problem. In that case you would effectively be a "mouse jiggler".
        grog454 4y ago
        My employer collects "screen time" based metrics and working hours aren't part of my employment agreement. This is beside the point. Let's look at it another way. Why do you think someone who spends a majority of their assigned working hours eating, shitting, and flirting with the receptionist should earn the same compensation as someone who spends 100% of their working hours doing things that are the in their job description? When I was naive, I tolerated being the latter in a job with many of the former. This was a contributing factor in deciding to work for myself. Now, if you want me to produce more than my coworkers that's fine, but I'll have to be compensated more.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Am I giving a multiple of my salary returned as value to my employer in that case? If so then yes, the employer is exploiting my work (knowledge, skills, productivity, etc.) and earning a good profit on it, I should be entitled to keep my share of this agreement, no matter how many hours I worked, I've produced the expected value out of those hours. Employers pay for productivity and the value generated by employees, not hours in a seat. That mindset is exactly the mindset of an oppressed labour force, as workers we aren't being paid so employers can get their share of hours of my life, we are being paid to generate value, it shouldn't really matter if that value is created in 1h or 40h per week, for the employer the result is the same.
    - thunky 4y ago
      While I agree with you in principle that a 40h week is arbitrary and ridiculous... > Employers pay for productivity and the value generated by employees, not hours in a seat. I'm not sure many employers see it that way. If they do, that's great. But I would guess that most think they should be getting 40 hrs worth of "work" out of their employees. What I imagine happens too frequently is that the employee hides the fact that they're actually working < 40 hrs a week, so the relationship with their employer is dishonest. That's why products like "mouse jigglers" exist, so employees can fool their employer.
      - Bakary 4y ago
        The entire employer-employee relationship is predicated on power imbalances specific to our economic and legal system, so how tragic is mouse jiggling, really?
        thunky 4y ago
        "tragic" is a bit dramatic. It's just dishonest and a sign of dysfunction. I'm sorry but I'm not going to shed a tear for people that defraud their employer because they think they're more valuable than everyone else. Also just think of what a luxury it is to have the opportunity to fake it. People that do "real" work don't have that opportunity. Imagine a drive thru worker posing a dummy in the window.