4 ms·

Please stop working more than 40 hours a week. It’s your choice, and you don’t need to choose to. When it goes badly, you also don’t need to use it as a point

Please stop working more than 40 hours a week. It’s your choice, and you don’t need to choose to. When it goes badly, you also don’t need to use it as a point of honor. It’s not. It just means you let your employer exploit you. Doing it because you want to is a little different. I often do. But you have to understand that the only thing you’ll get out of it is mild intellectual gratification, and sometimes not even that.

throwaway019254 3y ago
> It’s your choice, and you don’t need to choose to. And if I don't choose it, I can just choose to not pay bills/rent when I'm fired. What a simple solution.
- devmor 3y ago
  As you can see from the article you're commenting on, it does not protect you from being fired, so I don't see your point.
  - throwaway019254 3y ago
    The point is that some people just don't have a choice. You are right, as described in the article, it will not protect you from being fired. But choosing not to work overtime may directly cause the firing.
    - devmor 3y ago
      I think the implied solution is to find another position if possible. You can always work for a bad company while attempting to be hired by a better one.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  I think employers exaggerate their willingness to fire you. It’s risky for them. For example, they can’t fire everybody, so after they fire one person, the next one should be proportionally less afraid of working less. You’re also not limited to one job. Even people in economically disadvantaged positions can usually get another one if needed. In other words, it’s precisely this fear that employers are counting on. Speaking from experience, once you face it, it tends to evaporate.
- JeremyNT 3y ago
  Ultimately, it's just one more point of negotiation. In a market where labor is scarce, clocking out at <= 40 hours might be no problem, because you're not readily replaced. But when the balance shifts and your skills are in less demand, the screws are turned, and management is going to start asking questions about who is providing the best value. To a corporation, employees are just fungible cogs, ready to be replaced if they aren't delivering. Unless you really are a 10x developer (and by definition we all sure aren't) your head could be on the chopping block. If you're a 1x developer, an easy way to get more done than another 1x developer is to put in 1.5x the hours that they do.
  - cmcaleer 3y ago
    What led me to self-employment was that the 1.2x developer who works reasonable hours is often perceived as less productive as the 0.7x developer who is ass in chair more often. Maybe things have gotten better since covid but I doubt it.
earthwalker99 3y ago
>It just means you let your employer exploit you. By definition, all labor on which another profits is a case of exploitation, regardless of length in time.
- communitynotes 3y ago
  "all labor on which another profits" is not the definition of exploit. https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition
  - Frost1x 3y ago
    That’s not what OP said. They said it was a case of exploitation and they are correct. People just don’t like to hear it phrased that way because it brings up negative connotations. Now, while the agreement may be exploitive that doesn’t mean it isn’t mutually beneficial or that the situation be zero sum, at least viewed at a small scale. It’s perfectly possible to be exploited by someone and still end up in a better situation regardless. The level and terms of exploitation are what matters. As a member of the labor force you ideally want to minimize that exploitation and be charging as close to your value add as the market will bear. In an idealized situation, you pull more than the market rate in some way shape or form (higher pay, less work, etc.) because in a capitalistic system you should be doing your due diligence to help the labor market optimize the way the employer market is optimizing.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      The ideal compensation is: compensation = (value produced) - (cost to employ the person) - (opportunity cost) - (risk) By and large, that's what the employee gets. Get paid more than that, you're apt to be fired. Get paid less than that, you're apt to change jobs.
      - robocat 3y ago
        > compensation = (value produced Only in a non-capitalist society. You are naively missing company profit as the reward for company risk: capitalism 101. In an imaginary world you have built a business that brings in $x. You now employ $people to run the business and you leave the business in their capable hands. The amount of value produced by $people is $x. No capitalist owner would then share the total of $x out to the $people according to the value each person is producing in the business. Whether $x is profits or revenue, most capitalist businesses won't be kept alive for $0 profit. Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee. When someone (a new employee) joins an existing business like Apple, should they be paid around 2.4 million less costs? https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-employee-of-selected-tech-companies/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo...
Buttons840 3y ago
I can understand that sometimes the technology at work might provide a platform to try some things you're interested in, but if you're honest about what your long term goals and dreams are, those probably have very little to do with work. I used to get frustrated at work, thought I could recreate one of our systems in a better way, maybe I could have, but ultimately it was just a CRUD app, and making slight improvements to CRUD apps is not my dream. Running my own CRUD app, maybe, but not for someone else. (Nor were they asking me to recreate that system.) My real dream is something more like "figure out how to bring strong AI to the gaming industry to create more interesting single-player strategy games", but that's hard, much easier to chase some tangent on someone else's CRUD app.
boringg 3y ago
I think thats a noble position to take but I don't think it matches up with real world expectations esp if you have plans to move upwards in an organization (org culture dependent). I hear what you are saying but it’s a tough line to hold down in some companies.

throwaway019254 3y ago

> It’s your choice, and you don’t need to choose to. And if I don't choose it, I can just choose to not pay bills/rent when I'm fired. What a simple solution.

devmor 3y ago
As you can see from the article you're commenting on, it does not protect you from being fired, so I don't see your point.
- throwaway019254 3y ago
  The point is that some people just don't have a choice. You are right, as described in the article, it will not protect you from being fired. But choosing not to work overtime may directly cause the firing.
  - devmor 3y ago
    I think the implied solution is to find another position if possible. You can always work for a bad company while attempting to be hired by a better one.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
I think employers exaggerate their willingness to fire you. It’s risky for them. For example, they can’t fire everybody, so after they fire one person, the next one should be proportionally less afraid of working less. You’re also not limited to one job. Even people in economically disadvantaged positions can usually get another one if needed. In other words, it’s precisely this fear that employers are counting on. Speaking from experience, once you face it, it tends to evaporate.
JeremyNT 3y ago
Ultimately, it's just one more point of negotiation. In a market where labor is scarce, clocking out at <= 40 hours might be no problem, because you're not readily replaced. But when the balance shifts and your skills are in less demand, the screws are turned, and management is going to start asking questions about who is providing the best value. To a corporation, employees are just fungible cogs, ready to be replaced if they aren't delivering. Unless you really are a 10x developer (and by definition we all sure aren't) your head could be on the chopping block. If you're a 1x developer, an easy way to get more done than another 1x developer is to put in 1.5x the hours that they do.
- cmcaleer 3y ago
  What led me to self-employment was that the 1.2x developer who works reasonable hours is often perceived as less productive as the 0.7x developer who is ass in chair more often. Maybe things have gotten better since covid but I doubt it.

earthwalker99 3y ago

>It just means you let your employer exploit you. By definition, all labor on which another profits is a case of exploitation, regardless of length in time.

communitynotes 3y ago
"all labor on which another profits" is not the definition of exploit. https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition https://www.google.com/search?q=exploit+definition
- Frost1x 3y ago
  That’s not what OP said. They said it was a case of exploitation and they are correct. People just don’t like to hear it phrased that way because it brings up negative connotations. Now, while the agreement may be exploitive that doesn’t mean it isn’t mutually beneficial or that the situation be zero sum, at least viewed at a small scale. It’s perfectly possible to be exploited by someone and still end up in a better situation regardless. The level and terms of exploitation are what matters. As a member of the labor force you ideally want to minimize that exploitation and be charging as close to your value add as the market will bear. In an idealized situation, you pull more than the market rate in some way shape or form (higher pay, less work, etc.) because in a capitalistic system you should be doing your due diligence to help the labor market optimize the way the employer market is optimizing.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The ideal compensation is: compensation = (value produced) - (cost to employ the person) - (opportunity cost) - (risk) By and large, that's what the employee gets. Get paid more than that, you're apt to be fired. Get paid less than that, you're apt to change jobs.
    - robocat 3y ago
      > compensation = (value produced Only in a non-capitalist society. You are naively missing company profit as the reward for company risk: capitalism 101. In an imaginary world you have built a business that brings in $x. You now employ $people to run the business and you leave the business in their capable hands. The amount of value produced by $people is $x. No capitalist owner would then share the total of $x out to the $people according to the value each person is producing in the business. Whether $x is profits or revenue, most capitalist businesses won't be kept alive for $0 profit. Apple makes a revenue of 2.4 million per employee. When someone (a new employee) joins an existing business like Apple, should they be paid around 2.4 million less costs? https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-employee-of-selected-tech-companies/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/217489/revenue-per-emplo...

Buttons840 3y ago

I can understand that sometimes the technology at work might provide a platform to try some things you're interested in, but if you're honest about what your long term goals and dreams are, those probably have very little to do with work. I used to get frustrated at work, thought I could recreate one of our systems in a better way, maybe I could have, but ultimately it was just a CRUD app, and making slight improvements to CRUD apps is not my dream. Running my own CRUD app, maybe, but not for someone else. (Nor were they asking me to recreate that system.) My real dream is something more like "figure out how to bring strong AI to the gaming industry to create more interesting single-player strategy games", but that's hard, much easier to chase some tangent on someone else's CRUD app.

boringg 3y ago

I think thats a noble position to take but I don't think it matches up with real world expectations esp if you have plans to move upwards in an organization (org culture dependent). I hear what you are saying but it’s a tough line to hold down in some companies.