4 ms·

>In short, in practice, employers and employees both seem to prefer it when people work long days. If employees get more productive, both side of the bargaining

>In short, in practice, employers and employees both seem to prefer it when people work long days. If employees get more productive, both side of the bargaining table tend to negotiate for hours to stay at about the limit of what workers are physically capable of. If that were true our workday would be something like 6 hours. >they usually prefer to work more and have more stuff My paycheck is the same whether I work 40(45) hours per week or 90. I've actually reduced my productivity rather than increased it because there's no point in being more productive as an employee. All that will do is give me more work to do for the same wage. The answer is that we (I speak as an American) hate lazy people and view anyone not working full time plus as lazy. That's it. There's no additional overhead that magically appeared as productivity went up. It's greed and presenteeism. Work hard so your boss notices you so you can get that sweet, sweet 1% raise and a promotion that entails 200% more work. Why?

roenxi 3y ago
> My paycheck is the same whether I work 40(45) hours per week or 90. I've actually reduced my productivity rather than increased it because there's no point in being more productive as an employee. All that will do is give me more work to do for the same wage. Broadly speaking, that isn't correct. In the short term, over maybe a few months, the logic works. But over the longer term money tends to move away from unproductive workers and towards more productive workers. People don't make hiring, firing and pay decisions every day but when they do relative productivity is a consideration. Thinking this way leaves you open to being outcompeted.
- deprecative 3y ago
  Try years. The hardest working people I've had as coworkers are the same ones getting shit raises and no promotions because they're "too valuable" to move out of the position they're in. Meanwhile I've left the company after a few years for massive pay increases and they get to figure out what they're going to do with their year after year pay decreases thanks to not getting raises above inflation. Your experience may differ and that's fine. In my experience having worked at numerous businesses from startup to enterprise it's all the same. Hiring budgets are always bigger than retention budgets. 1% raise vs 10%+ salary increase. I know which one I am going to pick.
dasil003 3y ago
I don’t know if you’ve only ever worked for clueless management (a real possibility), but good orgs care about output not butt-in-seat time. In a healthy org you will be promoted because you are delivering value more efficiently, not because you are grinding more and more hours. Obviously the latter makes your effort more visible to management, but it’s not the only way to stand out. You’d be surprised how few employees really understand how their work translates to business value; just bringing a mentality where one thinks a little bit more critically about what they are doing and how things could be done better with the same amount of effort will make one much more upwardly mobile.
- deprecative 3y ago
  > In a healthy org you will be promoted because you are delivering value more efficiently, not because you are grinding more and more hours. Everywhere I've worked promotions are handed out by brown nosing. While, yes, you need to have a baseline of skill it's not nearly as much as one might expect. You can hit senior while being a junior if you sniff enough of your boss' farts. >You’d be surprised how few employees really understand how their work translates to business value That's really irrelevant in my experience. Sure some places may be different I haven't worked at every single employer. I've done the enterprise, mid-sized, mom and pop, and start up gauntlet both as a contractor and a full-time employee and it's not been much different regardless of the company. >how things could be done better with the same amount of effort will make one much more upwardly mobile. I don't care how much better something can be done. I care about a paycheck. I've pushed myself to near burnout for jobs before (plural) and you know what happened? Nothing but more work added to the pile. So at the end of the day I do the bare minimum required to hit my metrics. The people that put in the hours are surprised when we get the same raise. In some cases, people that do less than me get promoted and then have to figure out why they took on so much more work and responsibility for barely an increase in salary. It's laughable. Butt-in-seat time, as you put it, is the metric nearly everywhere actually cares about. Status go yellow? Where were you and why were you AFK? So, sure, I guess you could say that I've only ever worked for clueless management but in my experience all management is clueless. I've never worked anywhere IT or not, nor have I ever known someone personally who has worked anywhere, that management could turn the lights on in the morning without help. That's just what management is. The people who can do the job are doing the job. The people that can't get promoted to management.

roenxi 3y ago

> My paycheck is the same whether I work 40(45) hours per week or 90. I've actually reduced my productivity rather than increased it because there's no point in being more productive as an employee. All that will do is give me more work to do for the same wage. Broadly speaking, that isn't correct. In the short term, over maybe a few months, the logic works. But over the longer term money tends to move away from unproductive workers and towards more productive workers. People don't make hiring, firing and pay decisions every day but when they do relative productivity is a consideration. Thinking this way leaves you open to being outcompeted.

deprecative 3y ago
Try years. The hardest working people I've had as coworkers are the same ones getting shit raises and no promotions because they're "too valuable" to move out of the position they're in. Meanwhile I've left the company after a few years for massive pay increases and they get to figure out what they're going to do with their year after year pay decreases thanks to not getting raises above inflation. Your experience may differ and that's fine. In my experience having worked at numerous businesses from startup to enterprise it's all the same. Hiring budgets are always bigger than retention budgets. 1% raise vs 10%+ salary increase. I know which one I am going to pick.

dasil003 3y ago

I don’t know if you’ve only ever worked for clueless management (a real possibility), but good orgs care about output not butt-in-seat time. In a healthy org you will be promoted because you are delivering value more efficiently, not because you are grinding more and more hours. Obviously the latter makes your effort more visible to management, but it’s not the only way to stand out. You’d be surprised how few employees really understand how their work translates to business value; just bringing a mentality where one thinks a little bit more critically about what they are doing and how things could be done better with the same amount of effort will make one much more upwardly mobile.

deprecative 3y ago
> In a healthy org you will be promoted because you are delivering value more efficiently, not because you are grinding more and more hours. Everywhere I've worked promotions are handed out by brown nosing. While, yes, you need to have a baseline of skill it's not nearly as much as one might expect. You can hit senior while being a junior if you sniff enough of your boss' farts. >You’d be surprised how few employees really understand how their work translates to business value That's really irrelevant in my experience. Sure some places may be different I haven't worked at every single employer. I've done the enterprise, mid-sized, mom and pop, and start up gauntlet both as a contractor and a full-time employee and it's not been much different regardless of the company. >how things could be done better with the same amount of effort will make one much more upwardly mobile. I don't care how much better something can be done. I care about a paycheck. I've pushed myself to near burnout for jobs before (plural) and you know what happened? Nothing but more work added to the pile. So at the end of the day I do the bare minimum required to hit my metrics. The people that put in the hours are surprised when we get the same raise. In some cases, people that do less than me get promoted and then have to figure out why they took on so much more work and responsibility for barely an increase in salary. It's laughable. Butt-in-seat time, as you put it, is the metric nearly everywhere actually cares about. Status go yellow? Where were you and why were you AFK? So, sure, I guess you could say that I've only ever worked for clueless management but in my experience all management is clueless. I've never worked anywhere IT or not, nor have I ever known someone personally who has worked anywhere, that management could turn the lights on in the morning without help. That's just what management is. The people who can do the job are doing the job. The people that can't get promoted to management.