4 ms·

why would a company agree to pay the same salary for fewer hours of custody? it reminds me of the macchiavelli quote: > “How we live is so different from how

why would a company agree to pay the same salary for fewer hours of custody? it reminds me of the macchiavelli quote: > “How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.” productivity study is interesting but that's not how the real world incentives are aligned.

socialismisok 4y ago
Because the workers produce as much (or more) in that arrangement.
- 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
  more is never enough in the capitalist system
  - erinaceousjones 4y ago
    This makes the assumption that capitalism exists in a vacuum: It doesn't. Companies aren't *always* trying to simply optimise for financial growth at all times. They're made of humans, some of whom aren't necessarily megacapitalists.
  - Octoth0rpe 4y ago
    but more is still, well, more. So, it's still a better deal for the company. Maybe we haven't found the optimal point, but it definitely doesn't appear to be 40hours (or at least, not 8 * 5).
  - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      This is objectively false. Did you mean to say under Stalinist systems?
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    If you have two equivalent competing companies, both paying the same salaries to the same number of employees, and one company accomplishes more by asking their workers to 4 day weeks, then that company will be more successful and can put the other one out of business. Thus the key measure that this study would need to demonstrate would be not that the productivity/worker-hour ratio goes up but that also the productivity/worker-dollar goes up. If the latter is true, a lot of companies are going to take a close look at this because more is more.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
Most companies in my country pays developers by days and not hours and this contract situation means that by law you have no fixed schedule and can do the hours you want as long as you deliver. Of course, it means that you are actually working more hours than what hourly workers do but on the flip side no one can tell you anything if you disconnect for an hour in the middle.
MSFT_Edging 4y ago
- 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
  > You're essentially saying "the company prefers social control over productivity, and lets just let that go" yes, that is exactly what i'm saying :)
pwinnski 4y ago
Why do companies pay for people to work "only" five days each week? Or "only" 40 hours? Why not seven days, and 84 hours each week? Surely there are people willing to work those hours for even less than companies are paying now, eliminating the deadweight loss. Once you have the answer to that question, the answer to your question seems very straightforward.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  The answer is that both parties have agreed that 40 hours of work a week is worth that much money. And if there are people already willing to work 84 hours for less money then they would be employed already for less at 40 hours.
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    > 40 hours of work a week The concept of hours per week is shaped by it's origin in production manufacturing. Most people who are in a position to discuss 4 day weeks are in the Service Sector or otherwise 'creative roles'. This is analogue to the argument of why do we not pay developers by lines of code. Both time and LOCs are not necessarily linear with productivity and delivery of function. Arguing for pay to be linked to time is in my view an artefact of the production & manufacturing origins of modern work. So to come back to your point. Previously both parties agreed that 40 hour week was worth this much money. Now both parties agree that this link with time is a bad metric and that pay is provided for the realization of certain function or deliverable.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      It's not a bad metric. It's just not a perfect metric. And, more importantly, paying for time isn't a metric at all. It's just one of the legal ways to employ people. Paying for deliverables, which you describe, is another legal way to employ people. Here are some downsides to paying for deliverables: Any job that requires talking to other people will suffer, as they won't work at the same time. Some jobs this is okay (e.g. open source development is very asynchronous) but many are not. If you move to deliverables, what happens if you don't deliver on time? Do you not get paid? Who sets the deliverables? How are they paid, if they are the ones creating a nice deliverable structure for others to get paid for delivering bits of? How do we measure the value of each deliverable, to pay accordingly? How do we measure if you really delivered? If the company decides the deliverable is no longer valuable and stops it halfway, do you not get paid? Do you get paid based on the estimated value (at the time the work was agreed) of the bits you did do? Do you have to negotiate that? If you go on leave, should you not get paid? If you deliver twice as fast, do you get paid faster? How does "realisation of a function" work except based on time? If I'm at a service desk, should I be paid nothing if no tickets come in? Or should I be paid for... my time? What I'm driving at is you've invented something that already exists: the fixed-price contract. Scope is agreed, lawyers get involved to approve it, and finance for its budget, you do the work, the scope slips in a way that the customer believes was implied all along, you bring in lawyers to fight, and you get paid at the end, or not, and the work at the end probably suffers quality-wise because you had a fixed-price deliverable, and the faster you do it the more money you get. I don't think many people are up for that; nor are many companies going to go through that pain per-employee.
kalcode 4y ago
I get it is a strange idea. But putting a quote that doesn't really have any substance isn't really an argument nor adding value against it. I think the idea of 4 days work week is asking to work outside the box for a moment on what benefits this could entail for different industry. > To work all week is to surrender your will, working less is the core of motivating man (see this quote disagrees!)
yrgulation 4y ago
^^ here they come. just like the anti remote crowd, they actually want less rights and freedoms. i am fascinated by this. i really am.

socialismisok 4y ago

Because the workers produce as much (or more) in that arrangement.

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
more is never enough in the capitalist system
- erinaceousjones 4y ago
  This makes the assumption that capitalism exists in a vacuum: It doesn't. Companies aren't *always* trying to simply optimise for financial growth at all times. They're made of humans, some of whom aren't necessarily megacapitalists.
- Octoth0rpe 4y ago
  but more is still, well, more. So, it's still a better deal for the company. Maybe we haven't found the optimal point, but it definitely doesn't appear to be 40hours (or at least, not 8 * 5).
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    This is objectively false. Did you mean to say under Stalinist systems?
- shkkmo 4y ago
  If you have two equivalent competing companies, both paying the same salaries to the same number of employees, and one company accomplishes more by asking their workers to 4 day weeks, then that company will be more successful and can put the other one out of business. Thus the key measure that this study would need to demonstrate would be not that the productivity/worker-hour ratio goes up but that also the productivity/worker-dollar goes up. If the latter is true, a lot of companies are going to take a close look at this because more is more.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

Most companies in my country pays developers by days and not hours and this contract situation means that by law you have no fixed schedule and can do the hours you want as long as you deliver. Of course, it means that you are actually working more hours than what hourly workers do but on the flip side no one can tell you anything if you disconnect for an hour in the middle.

MSFT_Edging 4y ago

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
> You're essentially saying "the company prefers social control over productivity, and lets just let that go" yes, that is exactly what i'm saying :)

pwinnski 4y ago

Why do companies pay for people to work "only" five days each week? Or "only" 40 hours? Why not seven days, and 84 hours each week? Surely there are people willing to work those hours for even less than companies are paying now, eliminating the deadweight loss. Once you have the answer to that question, the answer to your question seems very straightforward.

robertlagrant 4y ago
The answer is that both parties have agreed that 40 hours of work a week is worth that much money. And if there are people already willing to work 84 hours for less money then they would be employed already for less at 40 hours.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  > 40 hours of work a week The concept of hours per week is shaped by it's origin in production manufacturing. Most people who are in a position to discuss 4 day weeks are in the Service Sector or otherwise 'creative roles'. This is analogue to the argument of why do we not pay developers by lines of code. Both time and LOCs are not necessarily linear with productivity and delivery of function. Arguing for pay to be linked to time is in my view an artefact of the production & manufacturing origins of modern work. So to come back to your point. Previously both parties agreed that 40 hour week was worth this much money. Now both parties agree that this link with time is a bad metric and that pay is provided for the realization of certain function or deliverable.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    It's not a bad metric. It's just not a perfect metric. And, more importantly, paying for time isn't a metric at all. It's just one of the legal ways to employ people. Paying for deliverables, which you describe, is another legal way to employ people. Here are some downsides to paying for deliverables: Any job that requires talking to other people will suffer, as they won't work at the same time. Some jobs this is okay (e.g. open source development is very asynchronous) but many are not. If you move to deliverables, what happens if you don't deliver on time? Do you not get paid? Who sets the deliverables? How are they paid, if they are the ones creating a nice deliverable structure for others to get paid for delivering bits of? How do we measure the value of each deliverable, to pay accordingly? How do we measure if you really delivered? If the company decides the deliverable is no longer valuable and stops it halfway, do you not get paid? Do you get paid based on the estimated value (at the time the work was agreed) of the bits you did do? Do you have to negotiate that? If you go on leave, should you not get paid? If you deliver twice as fast, do you get paid faster? How does "realisation of a function" work except based on time? If I'm at a service desk, should I be paid nothing if no tickets come in? Or should I be paid for... my time? What I'm driving at is you've invented something that already exists: the fixed-price contract. Scope is agreed, lawyers get involved to approve it, and finance for its budget, you do the work, the scope slips in a way that the customer believes was implied all along, you bring in lawyers to fight, and you get paid at the end, or not, and the work at the end probably suffers quality-wise because you had a fixed-price deliverable, and the faster you do it the more money you get. I don't think many people are up for that; nor are many companies going to go through that pain per-employee.

kalcode 4y ago

I get it is a strange idea. But putting a quote that doesn't really have any substance isn't really an argument nor adding value against it. I think the idea of 4 days work week is asking to work outside the box for a moment on what benefits this could entail for different industry. > To work all week is to surrender your will, working less is the core of motivating man (see this quote disagrees!)

yrgulation 4y ago

^^ here they come. just like the anti remote crowd, they actually want less rights and freedoms. i am fascinated by this. i really am.