6 ms·

This doesn't make any sense. Most people are salaried and their time isn't tracked that way anyway. To a certain point I agree with you, but how much an employ

This doesn't make any sense. Most people are salaried and their time isn't tracked that way anyway. To a certain point I agree with you, but how much an employee actually outputs is a constant negotiation between the business and the employee - this is where expectation comes into play. If you are performing beyond the baseline, you can negotiate to be compensated for exceeding it, or you can take a break. There is no expectation that an employee should perform more work "for free" just because they can. I believe in fairness between both sides - there is no free lunch in either direction.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Ultimately it comes down to deception. If an employee can do everything requested without lying, then maybe there is a defense. This position collapses the first time someone's boss asks about workload and the employee has to lie or admit they have tons of free time. Im sure there are unicorn cases where employees are never asked how long a task will take, or about their bandwidth for new tasks. However, in reality, the vast majority of situations require constant deception. Most of the time the lying starts at the beginning with false employment history.
b112 4y ago
This doesn't make any sense. Most people are salaried and their time isn't tracked that way anyway. Most employment contracts, even for salaried workers, list things such as "37.5hrs per week". If this is the understanding, and you aren't working diligently for those hours, you're a thief and fraudster, a scam artist, and should be fired. If you get done a task early, ask for more work! The attitude of people in this thread is laughable. People in this field are some of the most privileged, well paid members of our society. To hear such persons moan and bleet over their lot is laughable. Grow up people. Just disgusting.
- lucasyvas 4y ago
  You have to dedicate those those 37.5 hours, of course. But personal capability determines how those 37.5 hours play out. If I can hypothetically output three times the amount of work in the same time as one other person, it's a raw deal to output max - you burn out for one. As well, that means you're good and you neogiate. I don't know if anyone was advocating for going as far as you're suggesting (break doesn't mean paid vacation) - merely pointing out that an employee is granted the right to negotiate their labor at any point. If they get declined, that's fine. But the idea that you are a literal slave for 37.5 hours regardless of your capability is very flawed and you'll never convince the person that actually creates value of that. The funny part for me is that I have grown up - I used to share your position but time and time again I was proved wrong, so I changed my mind.
  - b112 4y ago
    This whole thread started, when an employer found someone working two other full time jobs. There is zero defense for this. None. There is no way to work 22.5 hrs per day, 5 days a week, and not be a thief, a crook, scum. This is who you have aligned yourself with. This is the behaviour you have defended. Into this conversation walked the spoiled, the entitled, the scam artist. People advocated working multiple full time jobs, and equated doing normal work as "slavery". Above, you do so again. You liken working diligently, to slavery. Good grief.
treis 4y ago
The point of a salaried position is that you're a professional filling a role for an organization. That role is not "do tasks assigned". It's spend your working time to make stuff better. With "working time" either explicitly laid out or implicitly, for the US, roughly 40 hours a week M-F. Working beyond explicitly assigned tasks is not "performing more work for free". It's doing your job.
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  >The point of a salaried position is that you're a professional filling a role for an organization. That role is not "do tasks assigned". That's funny because if I hire a company to do some work on my house, they do strictly the tasks assigned and even try to charge me more than agreed. They don't try to make my house better.
  - balderdash 4y ago
    Wrong analogy - you hired a contractor, with a specified scope of work. The right analogy is you hire a full-time handyman (whatever go with it), and you come home to find them on your couch in the middle of the day, their excuse is I fixed the dishwasher, and your response is likely to be “I’m not paying you to sit on the couch, go change the ac filters, fix the garage door, and re-seal the deck”
- ameister14 4y ago
  I've never read a contract that outlines job duties as "spend time working to make stuff better." Mostly they have a list and then 'tasks as needed/assigned.' If you want people to work beyond the bounds of their contract, then renegotiate the contract.
  - balderdash 4y ago
    Yep, and part of that as needed/as assigned is to notify your supervisor that you are done with your assigned tasks and are ready for a new one, if they don’t have one for you great, play minesweeper, but if you’re done with your assignments (seriously who is ever in that position), and don’t say so, now you’re acting deceptively.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Ultimately it comes down to deception. If an employee can do everything requested without lying, then maybe there is a defense. This position collapses the first time someone's boss asks about workload and the employee has to lie or admit they have tons of free time. Im sure there are unicorn cases where employees are never asked how long a task will take, or about their bandwidth for new tasks. However, in reality, the vast majority of situations require constant deception. Most of the time the lying starts at the beginning with false employment history.

b112 4y ago

This doesn't make any sense. Most people are salaried and their time isn't tracked that way anyway. Most employment contracts, even for salaried workers, list things such as "37.5hrs per week". If this is the understanding, and you aren't working diligently for those hours, you're a thief and fraudster, a scam artist, and should be fired. If you get done a task early, ask for more work! The attitude of people in this thread is laughable. People in this field are some of the most privileged, well paid members of our society. To hear such persons moan and bleet over their lot is laughable. Grow up people. Just disgusting.

lucasyvas 4y ago
You have to dedicate those those 37.5 hours, of course. But personal capability determines how those 37.5 hours play out. If I can hypothetically output three times the amount of work in the same time as one other person, it's a raw deal to output max - you burn out for one. As well, that means you're good and you neogiate. I don't know if anyone was advocating for going as far as you're suggesting (break doesn't mean paid vacation) - merely pointing out that an employee is granted the right to negotiate their labor at any point. If they get declined, that's fine. But the idea that you are a literal slave for 37.5 hours regardless of your capability is very flawed and you'll never convince the person that actually creates value of that. The funny part for me is that I have grown up - I used to share your position but time and time again I was proved wrong, so I changed my mind.
- b112 4y ago
  This whole thread started, when an employer found someone working two other full time jobs. There is zero defense for this. None. There is no way to work 22.5 hrs per day, 5 days a week, and not be a thief, a crook, scum. This is who you have aligned yourself with. This is the behaviour you have defended. Into this conversation walked the spoiled, the entitled, the scam artist. People advocated working multiple full time jobs, and equated doing normal work as "slavery". Above, you do so again. You liken working diligently, to slavery. Good grief.

treis 4y ago

The point of a salaried position is that you're a professional filling a role for an organization. That role is not "do tasks assigned". It's spend your working time to make stuff better. With "working time" either explicitly laid out or implicitly, for the US, roughly 40 hours a week M-F. Working beyond explicitly assigned tasks is not "performing more work for free". It's doing your job.

DeathArrow 4y ago
>The point of a salaried position is that you're a professional filling a role for an organization. That role is not "do tasks assigned". That's funny because if I hire a company to do some work on my house, they do strictly the tasks assigned and even try to charge me more than agreed. They don't try to make my house better.
- balderdash 4y ago
  Wrong analogy - you hired a contractor, with a specified scope of work. The right analogy is you hire a full-time handyman (whatever go with it), and you come home to find them on your couch in the middle of the day, their excuse is I fixed the dishwasher, and your response is likely to be “I’m not paying you to sit on the couch, go change the ac filters, fix the garage door, and re-seal the deck”
ameister14 4y ago
I've never read a contract that outlines job duties as "spend time working to make stuff better." Mostly they have a list and then 'tasks as needed/assigned.' If you want people to work beyond the bounds of their contract, then renegotiate the contract.
- balderdash 4y ago
  Yep, and part of that as needed/as assigned is to notify your supervisor that you are done with your assigned tasks and are ready for a new one, if they don’t have one for you great, play minesweeper, but if you’re done with your assignments (seriously who is ever in that position), and don’t say so, now you’re acting deceptively.