4 ms·

I really think they are using this as an opportunity to get people to sacrifice their work/life balance. Also it seems like unfortunately 35 hours a week is no

I really think they are using this as an opportunity to get people to sacrifice their work/life balance. Also it seems like unfortunately 35 hours a week is not the most output that can be extracted out of most people. Nor are 40 years in education/labor (from 20-65). This is despite the studies showing that people have trouble focusing after 35 hours being mostly true.

whiplash451 4y ago
The problem isn’t with people being inefficient beyond 35 hours. The problem is with the large number of people who don’t even put in a serious 10h on the job.
caconym_ 4y ago
I totally buy the 35 hour thing, but I don't think these companies really have a reason to care. They can push workers to the breaking point to extract whatever diminished returns at no additional cost, then "manage out" the resulting burned-out husks and replace them with fresh meat. With a side of ageism in hiring to ensure that you're getting the freshest, least-distracted minds as grist for your CRUD app mill, it's win-win. Another win is that by focusing on attrition rather than sustainable retention, you can lag inflation in your compensation since you only have to match it at offer time.