4 ms·

This is an ironic attempt at solving micromanagement. The politicians themselves are micromanaging society, trying to create all kinds of stupid laws that backf

by proc0 3y ago

This is an ironic attempt at solving micromanagement. The politicians themselves are micromanaging society, trying to create all kinds of stupid laws that backfire over and over again. What's next, are they going to try and pass laws on how many meetings are allowed every week? How about a mandate limiting how much gluten products grocery stores should have? At this point I feel CA needs the Argentina treatment and get rid of most of the government because it's creating more problems then its solving.

082349872349872 3y ago
> pass laws on how many meetings are allowed every week I'm not going to advocate they should do this, but... I wouldn't be surprised if there were more successful startups under such a regulatory regime. Most meetings are for the benefit of people who either don't know how to or can't be bothered to compose async comms. I must not meet. Meetings are the work-killer. Meetings are the little-death that bring total distraction.
- proc0 3y ago
  This is not about whether that is a problem or not, but rather whether the government should be the one fixing it. These type of issues are very murky and have a lot of subtle exceptions, there is no way they can create a law that would properly address the problems without creating new ones. Government is just not the right tool here. It's like using a flamethrower to toast some bread.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Government is just a group of employees who work for the people. The people call on these employees to perform cleanup when outliers are compromising the wishes of the general population. What cleanup is necessary here? If everyone didn't want to read email after work they'd simply not do it, of course! What is happening, though, is that most people do not engage in after-work emails and calls, but a small group of people are going "above and beyond" in an effort be more competitive in the workplace. This has placed the general population in a situation where they are feeling increased pressure to also go "above and beyond" to remain competitive alongside. Something they do not want to do, something they find a need to correct. Let's face it, there are workers out there who have clear distain for other workers and left to their own devices will do all kinds of crazy things to ensure that they screw over the other worker sitting beside them out of a job. They will accept less pay, longer hours, unsafe environments, what have you just to fuck over the other guy. And if it means reading emails at all hours of the day to compromise their neighbour, they will do it! That's why we find labour laws of all sorts to quash such behaviour. This is just yet another instance. You are quite right that the people often don't consider the unintended consequences, but they also have a problem at hand and government is the tool they know. It may not be the right tool, but I also don't see suggestion of what the better tool is. You can't use tools you are unaware of. It is no surprise the people are not reaching for whatever this unknown better tool is.
    - aebtebeten 3y ago
      See also https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/law-4 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/law-4 There's no law against chewing rocks or sticking a fork in your ass until, for whatever unfathomable reason, a bunch of people start doing it in a manner that inconveniences everyone else.
    - proc0 3y ago
      An employer can fire employees for literally no reason, right? Even if there are protected categories of people that could sue an employer for unjust termination, this can be easily circumvented. If people can be fired for no reason, then dictating how companies should be using email is pointless and will create more problems that it will solve. The real solution here would be that you can't fire someone just because someone else is more productive... except that would go against at-will employment and would crush small companies that will not be able to take on the risk. Additionally, some people are just more productive by nature, and not trying to do it because they hate their coworkers. Some people are better at things than other people, this is just natural and trying to control it and equalize the playing field would be catastrophic. I think if someone is in a position where their coworkers are outperforming to the point that person feels overwhelmed, then that job is probably not the right match and they need to keep looking until they find that intersection of something they are naturally good at and something a company needs.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > An employer can fire employees for literally no reason, right? Not where I am located, no. In some places, sure. > The real solution here would be that you can't fire someone just because someone else is more productive... Is it? We also already have the no email/calls law on the books here. In fact, we have all kinds of labour laws. By the same logic, if you can't fire someone for charging too much you shouldn't need minimum wage, but we have that too. If you can't fire someone for refusing to work in unsafe conditions, you shouldn't need workplace safety laws either, but we also have those. And for good reason. It is not the threat of being fired, at least not exclusively so, that creates these competitive conditions.
- out-of-ideas 3y ago
  > Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham tweeted a bit of an ode to late-night work, writing, “Some of the very best work is done late at night. Not just at startups, but in research too. That's when you can work on hard problems without distractions. “If you looked at emails reporting important breakthroughs, a surprisingly large number would have been sent after hours.” ironic for the thought of "without distractions" .. all i can think of are "open offices" and "meetings" are the real distractions to a whole lot of folks; or companies so big and siloed where folks refuse to talk to other folks .. which all boil down to management problems and terrible expectations. I do think a 4 day work week and max 30-32 hours in those 4 days would make a lot more folks happy in the long run (albeit easier said than done) - at least worth a try vs not trying at all. need somebody to work more than that, then pay em overtime... Classic example of Mike Monteiro's fyou pay me in which a lot of people dont get paid for work
loa_in_ 3y ago
The term micromanagement doesn't apply to government regulations. We already can't say publicly things with specific meanings (e.g. slander), can't possess tiny amounts of substances that are very specific (hallucinogenic), etc. The law of the land is in the upper bound of how extensive it needs to be.

by proc0 3y ago

082349872349872 3y ago

> pass laws on how many meetings are allowed every week I'm not going to advocate they should do this, but... I wouldn't be surprised if there were more successful startups under such a regulatory regime. Most meetings are for the benefit of people who either don't know how to or can't be bothered to compose async comms. I must not meet. Meetings are the work-killer. Meetings are the little-death that bring total distraction.

proc0 3y ago
This is not about whether that is a problem or not, but rather whether the government should be the one fixing it. These type of issues are very murky and have a lot of subtle exceptions, there is no way they can create a law that would properly address the problems without creating new ones. Government is just not the right tool here. It's like using a flamethrower to toast some bread.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Government is just a group of employees who work for the people. The people call on these employees to perform cleanup when outliers are compromising the wishes of the general population. What cleanup is necessary here? If everyone didn't want to read email after work they'd simply not do it, of course! What is happening, though, is that most people do not engage in after-work emails and calls, but a small group of people are going "above and beyond" in an effort be more competitive in the workplace. This has placed the general population in a situation where they are feeling increased pressure to also go "above and beyond" to remain competitive alongside. Something they do not want to do, something they find a need to correct. Let's face it, there are workers out there who have clear distain for other workers and left to their own devices will do all kinds of crazy things to ensure that they screw over the other worker sitting beside them out of a job. They will accept less pay, longer hours, unsafe environments, what have you just to fuck over the other guy. And if it means reading emails at all hours of the day to compromise their neighbour, they will do it! That's why we find labour laws of all sorts to quash such behaviour. This is just yet another instance. You are quite right that the people often don't consider the unintended consequences, but they also have a problem at hand and government is the tool they know. It may not be the right tool, but I also don't see suggestion of what the better tool is. You can't use tools you are unaware of. It is no surprise the people are not reaching for whatever this unknown better tool is.
  - aebtebeten 3y ago
    See also https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/law-4 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/law-4 There's no law against chewing rocks or sticking a fork in your ass until, for whatever unfathomable reason, a bunch of people start doing it in a manner that inconveniences everyone else.
  - proc0 3y ago
    An employer can fire employees for literally no reason, right? Even if there are protected categories of people that could sue an employer for unjust termination, this can be easily circumvented. If people can be fired for no reason, then dictating how companies should be using email is pointless and will create more problems that it will solve. The real solution here would be that you can't fire someone just because someone else is more productive... except that would go against at-will employment and would crush small companies that will not be able to take on the risk. Additionally, some people are just more productive by nature, and not trying to do it because they hate their coworkers. Some people are better at things than other people, this is just natural and trying to control it and equalize the playing field would be catastrophic. I think if someone is in a position where their coworkers are outperforming to the point that person feels overwhelmed, then that job is probably not the right match and they need to keep looking until they find that intersection of something they are naturally good at and something a company needs.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > An employer can fire employees for literally no reason, right? Not where I am located, no. In some places, sure. > The real solution here would be that you can't fire someone just because someone else is more productive... Is it? We also already have the no email/calls law on the books here. In fact, we have all kinds of labour laws. By the same logic, if you can't fire someone for charging too much you shouldn't need minimum wage, but we have that too. If you can't fire someone for refusing to work in unsafe conditions, you shouldn't need workplace safety laws either, but we also have those. And for good reason. It is not the threat of being fired, at least not exclusively so, that creates these competitive conditions.
out-of-ideas 3y ago
> Y Combinator co-founder Paul Graham tweeted a bit of an ode to late-night work, writing, “Some of the very best work is done late at night. Not just at startups, but in research too. That's when you can work on hard problems without distractions. “If you looked at emails reporting important breakthroughs, a surprisingly large number would have been sent after hours.” ironic for the thought of "without distractions" .. all i can think of are "open offices" and "meetings" are the real distractions to a whole lot of folks; or companies so big and siloed where folks refuse to talk to other folks .. which all boil down to management problems and terrible expectations. I do think a 4 day work week and max 30-32 hours in those 4 days would make a lot more folks happy in the long run (albeit easier said than done) - at least worth a try vs not trying at all. need somebody to work more than that, then pay em overtime... Classic example of Mike Monteiro's fyou pay me in which a lot of people dont get paid for work

loa_in_ 3y ago

The term micromanagement doesn't apply to government regulations. We already can't say publicly things with specific meanings (e.g. slander), can't possess tiny amounts of substances that are very specific (hallucinogenic), etc. The law of the land is in the upper bound of how extensive it needs to be.