3 ms·

The difference between working 32 hours a week and 40 is far, far less than the difference between working a fixed number of hours and a variable number that yo

• kuchenbecker 3y ago
  Every employee has a certain amount of overhead per employee whether that is 1:1s, hr, benefits, forms, etc and your cost to employer is beyond salary which they are incentivized to minimize. This is overly simple: Let's make the incorrect assumption all hours are equal. - 40 hours making $4000, at $100/hr, with $1000 overhead, for a total cost of $5000, or 125/hr. - 32 hours making $3200, at 100/hr, with $1000 overhead is a total cost of $4200, 131/hr So let's ballpark and say you need 10% increase in productivity to make the cost of an equally efficient worker working 80% time. I'm not sure I've worked at a company that can estimate individual performance with that margin.
  • earthling8118 3y ago
    Why do we need to increase productivity to make this work? When productivity increases by other means compensation doesn't increase nor do hours decrease. That productivity gain is happily eaten up by the company. This looks like a case of companies wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
    • kuchenbecker 3y ago
      I'm making a strawman actuarial argument; basically there is little incentive to the Company and they would need to see a productivity increase if pay is linear scaled to match hours due to the per employee overhead.