5 ms·

I find that post you linked disgusting. Now I see why we need laws for things I feel are obvious. I feel like that person should be reported to the authorities

by smtddr 13y ago

I find that post you linked disgusting. Now I see why we need laws for things I feel are obvious. I feel like that person should be reported to the authorities or something. Not hiring people because they refuse to regularly work over 40hrs/week should be illegal. I mean, sure I understand crunch time as release-to-production draws near. I have slept in my cubicle overnight before to make sure a critical production-change went smoothly, but that's my choice when I deem it necessary or a manager I respect is in a tough-spot and would really like me to help him/her out. In what world does any manager think they can demand >40hrs/week from me on regular basis? Unless I own a significant part of the company, I'm just an employee and as such >40hrs/week for a regular employee is an indication of a problem.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Not hiring people because they refuse to regularly work over 40hrs/week should be illegal. Actually overemploying people should be illegal (at least, it should be illegal without a regulated rate of overtime pay that lets employers and employees rationally negotiate the ethical-lifestyle trade-off involved). Refusing to hire someone because they won't let themselves be abused is doing them a favor.
sanderjd 13y ago
Nah it's cool, it's not so hard to just not work for people who don't grok work-life balance. I mean, yeah, sure, labor laws are a great thing, but in this case and in the current market for tech hiring, it's pretty easy to fix by asking "hey what's your work-life balance like?" in the interview, making decisions based on the answer, and leaving if the answer turns out to have been a lie.
- huherto 13y ago
  ...furthermore the cost for such a company will be not being able to recruit and retain great talent. Intangible cost but very real.
ruswick 13y ago
What's really appalling about that post is that the expectation was that people don't complain about working excessive hours. The implication is not only that workers need to work more than the internationally-accepted precedent, but need to do so with total enthusiasm. I can see people begrudgingly working extra time if the circumstances demanded it, but the idea that complaining about working those extra hours should be a capital offense is horrifying.
LordHumungous 13y ago
They can demand it but they better be paying/equitizing me appropriately.
throwaway420 13y ago
> I find that post you linked disgusting. Now I see why we need laws for things I feel are obvious. I feel like that person should be reported to the authorities or something. Not hiring people because they refuse to regularly work over 40hrs/week should be illegal. It's interesting that you're so adamant about having the ability to make your personal choices here when you're advocating to take choice away from others. The article states that the employer demanding 80 hour work weeks cannot find anybody to fill that role for 4 months and counting. Employers have to compete for labor just as employees have to compete for jobs. If somebody offers an 80 hour per week job without offering adequate compensation (multiple times the market rate, a large percentage of ownership, etc), then they'll fail to fill that role. Your personal feelings are no justification for trying to create laws and interfering with other peoples' voluntary transactions in the marketplace.
- v13inc 13y ago
  I probably shouldn't respond, considering the (very stoner) name of "throwaway420", but the employer is in a position of power, so it is not unreasonable to want laws that draw bounderies around your commitment, especially with salary workers. Fortunately, we work in an employee driven industry, so employers who demand extraordinary commitment can't find employees.
  - bencollier49 13y ago
    For now.
  - bandy 13y ago
    They'll always find someone who is hungry.
- chii 13y ago
  > they'll fail to fill that role. while this is true (mostly), the assumption is that there is competition, which isn't always the case. Civilized society should set some decent standards to which employers must adhere to, because the invisible hand of the free-market doesn't take into consideration human conditions when it optimizes for profit.
coolestuk 13y ago
"I feel like that person should be reported to the authorities or something. Not hiring people because they refuse to regularly work over 40hrs/week should be illegal." My husband is a low-grade chef. The vast majority of places where he worked/interviewed expected him to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week (sometimes 6.5 days - those employers thought someone only working 6 hours on the 7th day was being treated well). And bear in mind people like him are working these very long hours under time-pressure, with people barking orders at them; they are using sharp knives, boiling water, boiling fat. Quite often, the employers kept all tips/service charges. If the staff did get tips/service charges, they went to waiting staff/bar staff. Only about 5% of the places where he was interviewed did he get offered a 40 hour week, with some of the tips/service charges going to him. Oh yeah. And all this on minimum wage. Hours worked beyond 40 were never paid as overtime in these places. He was working in the kinds of restaurants were programmers and other professionals would go for dinner. He spent the last 3 months living off his savings until he could get a job at one of the 5% of places that operated the kind of working hours that everyone else takes for granted.
- smtddr 13y ago
  >>where he worked/interviewed expected him to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week (sometimes 6.5 days - those employers thought someone only working 6 hours on the 7th day was being treated well). And bear in mind people like him are working these very long hours under time-pressure, with people barking orders at them; they are using sharp knives, boiling water, boiling fat. Okay, good for him. But I stand firmly by what I said, that should be illegal. >>the kind of working hours that everyone else takes for granted. I assume you mean 40hrs/week. When I hear someone say "take for granted" to describe something, I believe they consider that something a luxury. If 40hrs/week is a luxury, then what do we consider normal? I'm not accepting some 3rd-world sweatshop, or even 1st-world Amazon shipping facilities as normal... or even what your husband went through as normal. Nobody should have to live like that.
- Retric 13y ago
  If your making minimum wage in the US they are required by law to pay you 1.5x overtime after 40 hours. Which is why many low wage jobs push people out the door at 40 hours. Granted, recovering that money can be a pain but it's vary doable. http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm : http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs23.pdf http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs23.pdf Unless specifically exempted, employees covered by the Act must receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay.

by smtddr 13y ago

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

Not hiring people because they refuse to regularly work over 40hrs/week should be illegal. Actually overemploying people should be illegal (at least, it should be illegal without a regulated rate of overtime pay that lets employers and employees rationally negotiate the ethical-lifestyle trade-off involved). Refusing to hire someone because they won't let themselves be abused is doing them a favor.

sanderjd 13y ago

Nah it's cool, it's not so hard to just not work for people who don't grok work-life balance. I mean, yeah, sure, labor laws are a great thing, but in this case and in the current market for tech hiring, it's pretty easy to fix by asking "hey what's your work-life balance like?" in the interview, making decisions based on the answer, and leaving if the answer turns out to have been a lie.

huherto 13y ago
...furthermore the cost for such a company will be not being able to recruit and retain great talent. Intangible cost but very real.

ruswick 13y ago

What's really appalling about that post is that the expectation was that people don't complain about working excessive hours. The implication is not only that workers need to work more than the internationally-accepted precedent, but need to do so with total enthusiasm. I can see people begrudgingly working extra time if the circumstances demanded it, but the idea that complaining about working those extra hours should be a capital offense is horrifying.

LordHumungous 13y ago

They can demand it but they better be paying/equitizing me appropriately.

throwaway420 13y ago

> I find that post you linked disgusting. Now I see why we need laws for things I feel are obvious. I feel like that person should be reported to the authorities or something. Not hiring people because they refuse to regularly work over 40hrs/week should be illegal. It's interesting that you're so adamant about having the ability to make your personal choices here when you're advocating to take choice away from others. The article states that the employer demanding 80 hour work weeks cannot find anybody to fill that role for 4 months and counting. Employers have to compete for labor just as employees have to compete for jobs. If somebody offers an 80 hour per week job without offering adequate compensation (multiple times the market rate, a large percentage of ownership, etc), then they'll fail to fill that role. Your personal feelings are no justification for trying to create laws and interfering with other peoples' voluntary transactions in the marketplace.

v13inc 13y ago
I probably shouldn't respond, considering the (very stoner) name of "throwaway420", but the employer is in a position of power, so it is not unreasonable to want laws that draw bounderies around your commitment, especially with salary workers. Fortunately, we work in an employee driven industry, so employers who demand extraordinary commitment can't find employees.
- bencollier49 13y ago
  For now.
- bandy 13y ago
  They'll always find someone who is hungry.
chii 13y ago
> they'll fail to fill that role. while this is true (mostly), the assumption is that there is competition, which isn't always the case. Civilized society should set some decent standards to which employers must adhere to, because the invisible hand of the free-market doesn't take into consideration human conditions when it optimizes for profit.

coolestuk 13y ago

"I feel like that person should be reported to the authorities or something. Not hiring people because they refuse to regularly work over 40hrs/week should be illegal." My husband is a low-grade chef. The vast majority of places where he worked/interviewed expected him to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week (sometimes 6.5 days - those employers thought someone only working 6 hours on the 7th day was being treated well). And bear in mind people like him are working these very long hours under time-pressure, with people barking orders at them; they are using sharp knives, boiling water, boiling fat. Quite often, the employers kept all tips/service charges. If the staff did get tips/service charges, they went to waiting staff/bar staff. Only about 5% of the places where he was interviewed did he get offered a 40 hour week, with some of the tips/service charges going to him. Oh yeah. And all this on minimum wage. Hours worked beyond 40 were never paid as overtime in these places. He was working in the kinds of restaurants were programmers and other professionals would go for dinner. He spent the last 3 months living off his savings until he could get a job at one of the 5% of places that operated the kind of working hours that everyone else takes for granted.

smtddr 13y ago
>>where he worked/interviewed expected him to work 12 hour days, 6 days a week (sometimes 6.5 days - those employers thought someone only working 6 hours on the 7th day was being treated well). And bear in mind people like him are working these very long hours under time-pressure, with people barking orders at them; they are using sharp knives, boiling water, boiling fat. Okay, good for him. But I stand firmly by what I said, that should be illegal. >>the kind of working hours that everyone else takes for granted. I assume you mean 40hrs/week. When I hear someone say "take for granted" to describe something, I believe they consider that something a luxury. If 40hrs/week is a luxury, then what do we consider normal? I'm not accepting some 3rd-world sweatshop, or even 1st-world Amazon shipping facilities as normal... or even what your husband went through as normal. Nobody should have to live like that.
Retric 13y ago
If your making minimum wage in the US they are required by law to pay you 1.5x overtime after 40 hours. Which is why many low wage jobs push people out the door at 40 hours. Granted, recovering that money can be a pain but it's vary doable. http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm : http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs23.pdf http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs23.pdf Unless specifically exempted, employees covered by the Act must receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay.