4 ms·

> you need to encourage going home and not thinking about work at all Why would any company encourage that? The only use that business had with people having f

> you need to encourage going home and not thinking about work at all Why would any company encourage that? The only use that business had with people having family was that having family put workers at a disadvantage, pressed them against the wall, forced them to suffer through even more exploitation than they would if they were childless. Make them existentially fear even trying to look for other opportunities. And give them a place to escape the burden of care of their children.

nickff 1y ago
Many companies encourage employees to go home and relax or engage in other rewarding activities; it can be very beneficial for the employer. For one thing, it encourages people to separate their work lives and home lives, which can decrease stress (often encouraging productivity and increasing tenure), as well as encouraging people to treat their office as somewhere to focus on work (to the exclusion of distractions). Additionally, in many fields it can be helpful to get a fresh perspective on your work every day, rather than getting tunnel-vision, which can happen from having your 'head down' all the time.
- wubrr 1y ago
  It sounds good and ostensibly makes sense, and many companies claim they do these things, just like many companies claim to have unlimited PTO. How many actually sincerely follow through on these claims? I've yet to encounter a single one.
  - nickff 1y ago
    It’s uncommon in startups and companies focused on high-growth (such as the FAANGs). Older, smaller, and more stable companies tend to have more of this orientation, but it usually comes with significantly lower compensation.
  - nunez 1y ago
    I've been fortunate in that the last few companies I've worked for kept up their end of this bargain
FollowingTheDao 1y ago
>Why would any company encourage that? Exactly which is why this article is so useless and misunderstands capitalism and does not know economic law. Corporations can never be family friendly becasue it is antagonistic to profit and therefor in direct violation to shareholders rights. See Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919) “A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the non-distribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.“ EDITING TO ADD: Down voting this comment is typical the sociopathic world we are living in where you cannot even show the truth of the law lest it affect sociopathic sensibilities. If one person would explain why my comment, which is just a fact, deserves to be downvoted I would appreciate the conversation.
- bluGill 1y ago
  > Corporations can never be family friendly becasue it is antagonistic to profit and therefor in direct violation to shareholders rights. This can be false (can, not is!). When good employees demand family live then the company that gives it to them can get those good employees. There are good employees who are willing to settle for less money if the company allows for a good family life and so the company makes more money. (hint you won't find many of them in the Bay area, but if you can expand your reach to other cities they are not uncommon)
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    But this is an ethical call, not a legal one. And the law will always over rule ethics. We need to change the laws to make corporations "family friendly" like mandatory 4 week vacations, better family leave compensation, and Medicare for All. Corporations are essentially sociopaths and have to be forced to have emapthy.
    - nickff 1y ago
      Corporations don’t need to have empathy to make deals with the benefits you mention, they just need counter-parties which prioritize those terms. Medicare has little to do with corporations (which usually don’t like having to spend time and money on health insurance), and many/most would be happy to be relieved of the obligation. With respect to more vacation time, we’ve reached the current equilibrium because government has enacted standards which encourage ‘anchoring’, and most people prefer extra wages over vacation. Much like with airline seats, the companies are giving people what they want.
bluGill 1y ago
I personally have less than 40 hours of week of good code in me. I've tried programming more than that many times, and I can do it for a few days but then I burn out and and less productive. So by encouraging me to not think about work outside of work hours they get more out of me when I'm at work.
louthy 1y ago
> Why would any company encourage that? I used to tell my employees to go home / not work late, because working longer hours doesn’t produce more output. You may get an initial uptick in output, but then it falls away as people get burned out/sick of work. Long hours also equals higher turnover of staff, which is expensive in many ways. There’s nothing good over the long term that comes from long hours. It’s bad for morale and it’s bad for the business. Respect your employees, consider their needs and you’ll have a more committed workforce with higher retention and higher quality output.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > and higher retention. Jurisdictions vary, but around here that isn't a desirable quality. There is much more legal exposure if you have employees who have been around for a long time.
  - louthy 1y ago
    I considered it a benefit. It meant I could hire fewer people. I had good, motivated people, with institutional knowledge. When you’re a small/medium sized business with limited funds this is much more desirable. It costs less to keep fewer people employed and you can be much more agile. Firing people who needed firing was never a problem and it didn’t tend to be people who’d been there for a long time that I wanted to fire. High turnover of staff has outsized costs: loss of institutional knowledge, loss of momentum on key projects, time taken onboarding/training, recruitment fees, etc. it’s to be avoided imho.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > High turnover of staff has outsized costs Of course, and one has to measure the tradeoffs, but in many cases those costs are cheap insurance. But, again, jurisdictions vary.
micromacrofoot 1y ago
> And give them a place to escape the burden of care of their children this mindset is the problem, if raising children is a burden to escape... what is life exactly?

nickff 1y ago

Many companies encourage employees to go home and relax or engage in other rewarding activities; it can be very beneficial for the employer. For one thing, it encourages people to separate their work lives and home lives, which can decrease stress (often encouraging productivity and increasing tenure), as well as encouraging people to treat their office as somewhere to focus on work (to the exclusion of distractions). Additionally, in many fields it can be helpful to get a fresh perspective on your work every day, rather than getting tunnel-vision, which can happen from having your 'head down' all the time.

wubrr 1y ago
It sounds good and ostensibly makes sense, and many companies claim they do these things, just like many companies claim to have unlimited PTO. How many actually sincerely follow through on these claims? I've yet to encounter a single one.
- nickff 1y ago
  It’s uncommon in startups and companies focused on high-growth (such as the FAANGs). Older, smaller, and more stable companies tend to have more of this orientation, but it usually comes with significantly lower compensation.
- nunez 1y ago
  I've been fortunate in that the last few companies I've worked for kept up their end of this bargain

FollowingTheDao 1y ago

>Why would any company encourage that? Exactly which is why this article is so useless and misunderstands capitalism and does not know economic law. Corporations can never be family friendly becasue it is antagonistic to profit and therefor in direct violation to shareholders rights. See Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 170 N.W. 668 (Mich. 1919) “A business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders. The powers of the directors are to be employed for that end. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of means to attain that end and does not extend to a change in the end itself, to the reduction of profits or to the non-distribution of profits among stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.“ EDITING TO ADD: Down voting this comment is typical the sociopathic world we are living in where you cannot even show the truth of the law lest it affect sociopathic sensibilities. If one person would explain why my comment, which is just a fact, deserves to be downvoted I would appreciate the conversation.

bluGill 1y ago
> Corporations can never be family friendly becasue it is antagonistic to profit and therefor in direct violation to shareholders rights. This can be false (can, not is!). When good employees demand family live then the company that gives it to them can get those good employees. There are good employees who are willing to settle for less money if the company allows for a good family life and so the company makes more money. (hint you won't find many of them in the Bay area, but if you can expand your reach to other cities they are not uncommon)
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  But this is an ethical call, not a legal one. And the law will always over rule ethics. We need to change the laws to make corporations "family friendly" like mandatory 4 week vacations, better family leave compensation, and Medicare for All. Corporations are essentially sociopaths and have to be forced to have emapthy.
  - nickff 1y ago
    Corporations don’t need to have empathy to make deals with the benefits you mention, they just need counter-parties which prioritize those terms. Medicare has little to do with corporations (which usually don’t like having to spend time and money on health insurance), and many/most would be happy to be relieved of the obligation. With respect to more vacation time, we’ve reached the current equilibrium because government has enacted standards which encourage ‘anchoring’, and most people prefer extra wages over vacation. Much like with airline seats, the companies are giving people what they want.

bluGill 1y ago

I personally have less than 40 hours of week of good code in me. I've tried programming more than that many times, and I can do it for a few days but then I burn out and and less productive. So by encouraging me to not think about work outside of work hours they get more out of me when I'm at work.

louthy 1y ago

> Why would any company encourage that? I used to tell my employees to go home / not work late, because working longer hours doesn’t produce more output. You may get an initial uptick in output, but then it falls away as people get burned out/sick of work. Long hours also equals higher turnover of staff, which is expensive in many ways. There’s nothing good over the long term that comes from long hours. It’s bad for morale and it’s bad for the business. Respect your employees, consider their needs and you’ll have a more committed workforce with higher retention and higher quality output.

9rx 1y ago
> and higher retention. Jurisdictions vary, but around here that isn't a desirable quality. There is much more legal exposure if you have employees who have been around for a long time.
- louthy 1y ago
  I considered it a benefit. It meant I could hire fewer people. I had good, motivated people, with institutional knowledge. When you’re a small/medium sized business with limited funds this is much more desirable. It costs less to keep fewer people employed and you can be much more agile. Firing people who needed firing was never a problem and it didn’t tend to be people who’d been there for a long time that I wanted to fire. High turnover of staff has outsized costs: loss of institutional knowledge, loss of momentum on key projects, time taken onboarding/training, recruitment fees, etc. it’s to be avoided imho.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > High turnover of staff has outsized costs Of course, and one has to measure the tradeoffs, but in many cases those costs are cheap insurance. But, again, jurisdictions vary.

micromacrofoot 1y ago

> And give them a place to escape the burden of care of their children this mindset is the problem, if raising children is a burden to escape... what is life exactly?