3 ms·

I genuinely don't understand the downvotes. Y'all really be simping for your employers. Any time spent doing anything you wouldn't be doing if it weren't for yo

by Spivak 4y ago

I genuinely don't understand the downvotes. Y'all really be simping for your employers. Any time spent doing anything you wouldn't be doing if it weren't for your job should be paid and it's dumb that we pretend it shouldn't be. This is how every salaried person's pay already works and it should apply to hourly workers too.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Vvector 4y ago
There is confusion between "commute time" before and after my shift and "driving time" required between deliveries or job sites.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
It sounds good. I understand your fire behind the idea. But in reality, in just doesn't work. If I don't value my time, and my employer has to pay for my commute, then why wouldn't I choose to move an hour away from work, or take a job an hour away, to make more money without actually working? How would you solve employers discriminating against people that live an hour away or paying a lower hourly wage to someone that lives farther away?
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Usually in this kind of scheme you would not be paid your normal hourly wage but a low rate. If you still think that sitting in a car for a small return is better than just being at your desk or job site making full pay for actual work, that's on the employer for creating such a shitty job->pay match that it's better to endure traffic for peanuts than work. Also, right now plenty of companies put out voluntary overtime that people don't end up taking, despite higher pay and literally the same work. Plenty of people would rather not be under someone else's command for an extra hour just to make a few bucks, and in fact, when you pay people adequately they largely don't want to do that. You always have weird outliers that think life is an idle game and try to make the bank account go as high as possible, but building systems around dumb outliers is not good systems engineering. On average, people don't want to spend extra hours in their car, even if you pay them full wage. This is why when Uber started out they basically had to push subsidized high pay, so people would be willing to drive around all day. Right now you can, with little experience, go make like $80k or more a year driving around all day, by being a trucker, and yet the industry is constantly struggling to keep people working, because the job is awful. If you have an employee that decides to move five hours away and waste ten hours of their day to make an extra hundred bucks, there are probably other things that make them a mediocre employee that you can fire them for.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    No it's because that $80K is before a lot of expenses.
nanidin 4y ago
I downvoted for use of the word simp, I don’t think it has a place on hackernews.

by Spivak 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Vvector 4y ago

There is confusion between "commute time" before and after my shift and "driving time" required between deliveries or job sites.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

It sounds good. I understand your fire behind the idea. But in reality, in just doesn't work. If I don't value my time, and my employer has to pay for my commute, then why wouldn't I choose to move an hour away from work, or take a job an hour away, to make more money without actually working? How would you solve employers discriminating against people that live an hour away or paying a lower hourly wage to someone that lives farther away?

mrguyorama 4y ago
Usually in this kind of scheme you would not be paid your normal hourly wage but a low rate. If you still think that sitting in a car for a small return is better than just being at your desk or job site making full pay for actual work, that's on the employer for creating such a shitty job->pay match that it's better to endure traffic for peanuts than work. Also, right now plenty of companies put out voluntary overtime that people don't end up taking, despite higher pay and literally the same work. Plenty of people would rather not be under someone else's command for an extra hour just to make a few bucks, and in fact, when you pay people adequately they largely don't want to do that. You always have weird outliers that think life is an idle game and try to make the bank account go as high as possible, but building systems around dumb outliers is not good systems engineering. On average, people don't want to spend extra hours in their car, even if you pay them full wage. This is why when Uber started out they basically had to push subsidized high pay, so people would be willing to drive around all day. Right now you can, with little experience, go make like $80k or more a year driving around all day, by being a trucker, and yet the industry is constantly struggling to keep people working, because the job is awful. If you have an employee that decides to move five hours away and waste ten hours of their day to make an extra hundred bucks, there are probably other things that make them a mediocre employee that you can fire them for.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  No it's because that $80K is before a lot of expenses.

nanidin 4y ago

I downvoted for use of the word simp, I don’t think it has a place on hackernews.