5 ms·

I agree with deleting the emails. The US is woefully behind Europe in this regard. I would like to see a French-style work week, with the added goodness of Fran

by forca 12y ago

I agree with deleting the emails. The US is woefully behind Europe in this regard. I would like to see a French-style work week, with the added goodness of France's recent email/phone call law forbidding employers from contacting employees after a certain time. I would like, at the very least, to see a federal law forbidding more than 40 hours max. The world has really deteriorated in regard to family life since the 80s. When everything started becoming 24-7, that's when the decline began. I remember the sanity of the 80s whilst living in a couple of countries in western Europe at the time. The pace of life was better, more family time, the fun challenge of getting a popular restaurant reservation before they closed at a sane hour. It wasn't all about profit then like it is now. I make it clear to my current employer that I don't do nights and weekends. When I leave the office at 1700, I'm unemployed. My wife and children come first.

chollida1 12y ago
> I would like, at the very least, to see a federal law forbidding more than 40 hours max This seems like a nice sentiment but it comes across and being out of touch with the general public. Many, people need to work more than 40 hours, pretty much anyone who works for an hourly wage that is around the minimum wage level, a week just to make ends meet. If your law is enacted you've just doomed a non negligible portion of the population to poverty. How would you even enforce your no more than 40 hours a week? What about anyone with a small business, or a lawyer who can bill $400/hour, should he be told he can't make any more money this week? We just ran a new gas line in our house, the plumber doing it was doing side jobs to save up for a Harley. Your law of not permitting anyone to work more than 40 hours a week seems to make the world a worse place than it is now:( To clarify, the op said 40 hours should be the most anyone is allowed to work, no exceptions, I'm fine with a law that says no one can be force to work more than 40 hours. But limiting people to 40 hours just seems like a really bad law. As to the email deletion, I like the idea but it seems like a nightmare from a compliance perspective:) The biggest down side I can see is that most services only send out one out of office email. What if someone is gone for more than a few days. I"m likely to forget that they are out, or now I have to add everyone's holiday schedule and all correspondence I want them to know about, to the list of things I need to keep in my head so I can resend emails when they come back. I'm scared already:(
- fauldsh 12y ago
  I might be wrong, UK law is different than the rest of the EU (you can opt out of the working time directive here). That said, isn't it a 40 hour max on contracted hours? Otherwise it is completely un-policeable. The idea is that you can't lose your job for refusing to work past 40 hours (i.e. refusing to take overtime). But you are allowed to work the overtime if you so please.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    40 hours/week is maximum your contract in the UK can oblige you to work. Having said that, when I got my job in the games industry I had to sign a statement stating that I voluntarily decide to work over that limit(but I am not required to). And no, overtime is not paid.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      48 hours. http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workingtimedirective.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workingtimedirective.htm It is not legal to make you sign the opt out.
      - gambiting 12y ago
        Ok 48 hours. And yes, I was told I don't have to sign it, but it's one of these situations when not signing it is ill advised. And in the games industry if I was working more than 48 hours per week it would be because I want to,not because I have to.
- winsome 12y ago
  I think the comment was geared more towards corporate America where salaried employees are often expected to work 60+ hours per week with no overtime pay or added benefits for the extra effort. At least I'd hope their idea for the law wouldn't limit hourly employees who need to work multiple jobs just to get by.
- lmm 12y ago
  > Many, people need to work more than 40 hours, pretty much anyone who works for an hourly wage that is around the minimum wage level, a week just to make ends meet. If your law is enacted you've just doomed a non negligible portion of the population to poverty. As a European what that says to me is that the minimum wage is too low and should be increased. And equally there are people today who have to desperately hope that they get assigned enough hours this month to get out of poverty. Restrictions on maximum weekly working time would help those people. > What about anyone with a small business Less than 5 employees or a meaningful ownership stake and you're probably exempt, as with most of these kind of regulations. > a lawyer who can bill $400/hour, should he be told he can't make any more money this week? Uh, yes? > To clarify, the op said 40 hours should be the most anyone is allowed to work, no exceptions, I'm fine with a law that says no one can be force to work more than 40 hours. But limiting people to 40 hours just seems like a really bad law. Economic reality is that that distinction kind of disappears. If unpleasant practice X makes employers more money, and you can volunteer for unpleasant practice X, pretty soon the only way to get a job is if you "volunteer" for X, at least on the low end.
smackfu 12y ago
> The world has really deteriorated in regard to family life since the 80s. How much of that is due to both parents working, rather than the wife staying home and managing the family?
- gizmo686 12y ago
  That is likely part of the perceived problem, but seems lacking. When the wife stayed home to manage the family, we had the husband working 40 hour weeks. Now, the gender equalization is not taking the form of the 40 hours being shared between the spouses, but rather the 80 hours shared between them.
  - mseebach 12y ago
    There is overhead on jobs. Unless performing the most simple mind numbing factory assembly line work, 2 x 20hrs << 1 x 40 hrs. There's also double the time wasted on commutes. Then there coordination overhead in the family - even if the two parents work 20 hours each, it's unlikely that it's exactly divided so one is always home. Child care costs a lot of money. Eating out costs money. But the most important reason: People still want careers and a career on half the working time takes in extremely simple terms at least twice as long.
    - forca 12y ago
      My wife and I worked out a plan: we moved very close to her parents who agreed to watch our children for three days a week. I work M-F days only, no nights, no weekends. My wife works Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Together we make enough to pays the bills, save a little, and have a bit of fun. The children are taken care of first and foremost. Sometimes you have to sacrifice to make do for your family by moving, whatever. It's always better to sacrifice money than time from your children. As long as you are making it and saving a little and have a bit for holidays, nothing else really matters. Getting rich should never be the goal.
      - MadManE 12y ago
gearhart 12y ago
Your company giving you the option to auto-delete holiday emails and the government enforcing a 40 hour work week are very different things. The Daimler approach gives a socially-acceptable option for people who want absolute downtime, which most people seem to agree is a good thing; your proposed law would remove people's opportunity to work harder and in a more concentrated fashion to give themselves other options. Your valuable time may be evenings and weekends with your family, mine may be being able to take a year out to travel or (although many European countries certainly don't seem to appreciate this), I may actually enjoy my job! In those instances, working a 70 hour work week may actually be what I want to do. There's nothing stopping you having a corporate culture that encourages 40 hour working weeks, and if that's what works for you then by all means, find an employer who will respect that, but you can't expect everybody to be forced to follow that lifestyle, and you can't expect an employer not to take it into consideration when they decide who they want to hire.
jasonkostempski 12y ago
I don't think laws are the answer. Can anyone say spending time with family and friends are top priorities all day, everyday? I wouldn't want laws telling me they have to be. Sometimes making money to support your family is more important than spending time with them. Some people don't have a family to spend time with. Some people don't like their family or have any friends. Some people like their work and that's where they want to be more often than not.
- lmm 12y ago
  If one person works late then other people have to match them. So you end up with a tragedy of the commons/race to the bottom. Which is exactly the situation that calls for laws.
  - gearhart 12y ago
    That's a really interesting problem, but falling back on laws to protect you from it seems to be accepting a sub-par solution without having fully explored the issue. This is something that ought to be solved by measurement and corporate culture - if you can properly measure your output, this time-based race to the bottom shouldn't be an issue, it becomes an output-based race to the top, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just bow out of the race when you reach your work-life balance. Quoting PG on HN is perhaps a bit like preaching to the choir but this is very appropriate: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
    - lmm 12y ago
      > if you can properly measure your output, this time-based race to the bottom shouldn't be an issue, it becomes an output-based race to the top, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just bow out of the race when you reach your work-life balance. True, but the assumption is false. As an industry we're terrible at measuring outputs, and sadly this causes management to fall back on measuring inputs. And even that, you don't get a free choice of. Working 75% as long as the rest of your team doesn't get you 75% of the salary, it gets you fired.

by forca 12y ago

chollida1 12y ago

> I would like, at the very least, to see a federal law forbidding more than 40 hours max This seems like a nice sentiment but it comes across and being out of touch with the general public. Many, people need to work more than 40 hours, pretty much anyone who works for an hourly wage that is around the minimum wage level, a week just to make ends meet. If your law is enacted you've just doomed a non negligible portion of the population to poverty. How would you even enforce your no more than 40 hours a week? What about anyone with a small business, or a lawyer who can bill $400/hour, should he be told he can't make any more money this week? We just ran a new gas line in our house, the plumber doing it was doing side jobs to save up for a Harley. Your law of not permitting anyone to work more than 40 hours a week seems to make the world a worse place than it is now:( To clarify, the op said 40 hours should be the most anyone is allowed to work, no exceptions, I'm fine with a law that says no one can be force to work more than 40 hours. But limiting people to 40 hours just seems like a really bad law. As to the email deletion, I like the idea but it seems like a nightmare from a compliance perspective:) The biggest down side I can see is that most services only send out one out of office email. What if someone is gone for more than a few days. I"m likely to forget that they are out, or now I have to add everyone's holiday schedule and all correspondence I want them to know about, to the list of things I need to keep in my head so I can resend emails when they come back. I'm scared already:(

fauldsh 12y ago
I might be wrong, UK law is different than the rest of the EU (you can opt out of the working time directive here). That said, isn't it a 40 hour max on contracted hours? Otherwise it is completely un-policeable. The idea is that you can't lose your job for refusing to work past 40 hours (i.e. refusing to take overtime). But you are allowed to work the overtime if you so please.
- gambiting 12y ago
  40 hours/week is maximum your contract in the UK can oblige you to work. Having said that, when I got my job in the games industry I had to sign a statement stating that I voluntarily decide to work over that limit(but I am not required to). And no, overtime is not paid.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    48 hours. http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workingtimedirective.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/workingtimedirective.htm It is not legal to make you sign the opt out.
    - gambiting 12y ago
      Ok 48 hours. And yes, I was told I don't have to sign it, but it's one of these situations when not signing it is ill advised. And in the games industry if I was working more than 48 hours per week it would be because I want to,not because I have to.
winsome 12y ago
I think the comment was geared more towards corporate America where salaried employees are often expected to work 60+ hours per week with no overtime pay or added benefits for the extra effort. At least I'd hope their idea for the law wouldn't limit hourly employees who need to work multiple jobs just to get by.
lmm 12y ago
> Many, people need to work more than 40 hours, pretty much anyone who works for an hourly wage that is around the minimum wage level, a week just to make ends meet. If your law is enacted you've just doomed a non negligible portion of the population to poverty. As a European what that says to me is that the minimum wage is too low and should be increased. And equally there are people today who have to desperately hope that they get assigned enough hours this month to get out of poverty. Restrictions on maximum weekly working time would help those people. > What about anyone with a small business Less than 5 employees or a meaningful ownership stake and you're probably exempt, as with most of these kind of regulations. > a lawyer who can bill $400/hour, should he be told he can't make any more money this week? Uh, yes? > To clarify, the op said 40 hours should be the most anyone is allowed to work, no exceptions, I'm fine with a law that says no one can be force to work more than 40 hours. But limiting people to 40 hours just seems like a really bad law. Economic reality is that that distinction kind of disappears. If unpleasant practice X makes employers more money, and you can volunteer for unpleasant practice X, pretty soon the only way to get a job is if you "volunteer" for X, at least on the low end.

smackfu 12y ago

> The world has really deteriorated in regard to family life since the 80s. How much of that is due to both parents working, rather than the wife staying home and managing the family?

gizmo686 12y ago
That is likely part of the perceived problem, but seems lacking. When the wife stayed home to manage the family, we had the husband working 40 hour weeks. Now, the gender equalization is not taking the form of the 40 hours being shared between the spouses, but rather the 80 hours shared between them.
- mseebach 12y ago
  There is overhead on jobs. Unless performing the most simple mind numbing factory assembly line work, 2 x 20hrs << 1 x 40 hrs. There's also double the time wasted on commutes. Then there coordination overhead in the family - even if the two parents work 20 hours each, it's unlikely that it's exactly divided so one is always home. Child care costs a lot of money. Eating out costs money. But the most important reason: People still want careers and a career on half the working time takes in extremely simple terms at least twice as long.
  - forca 12y ago
    My wife and I worked out a plan: we moved very close to her parents who agreed to watch our children for three days a week. I work M-F days only, no nights, no weekends. My wife works Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Together we make enough to pays the bills, save a little, and have a bit of fun. The children are taken care of first and foremost. Sometimes you have to sacrifice to make do for your family by moving, whatever. It's always better to sacrifice money than time from your children. As long as you are making it and saving a little and have a bit for holidays, nothing else really matters. Getting rich should never be the goal.
    - MadManE 12y ago

gearhart 12y ago

Your company giving you the option to auto-delete holiday emails and the government enforcing a 40 hour work week are very different things. The Daimler approach gives a socially-acceptable option for people who want absolute downtime, which most people seem to agree is a good thing; your proposed law would remove people's opportunity to work harder and in a more concentrated fashion to give themselves other options. Your valuable time may be evenings and weekends with your family, mine may be being able to take a year out to travel or (although many European countries certainly don't seem to appreciate this), I may actually enjoy my job! In those instances, working a 70 hour work week may actually be what I want to do. There's nothing stopping you having a corporate culture that encourages 40 hour working weeks, and if that's what works for you then by all means, find an employer who will respect that, but you can't expect everybody to be forced to follow that lifestyle, and you can't expect an employer not to take it into consideration when they decide who they want to hire.

jasonkostempski 12y ago

I don't think laws are the answer. Can anyone say spending time with family and friends are top priorities all day, everyday? I wouldn't want laws telling me they have to be. Sometimes making money to support your family is more important than spending time with them. Some people don't have a family to spend time with. Some people don't like their family or have any friends. Some people like their work and that's where they want to be more often than not.

lmm 12y ago
If one person works late then other people have to match them. So you end up with a tragedy of the commons/race to the bottom. Which is exactly the situation that calls for laws.
- gearhart 12y ago
  That's a really interesting problem, but falling back on laws to protect you from it seems to be accepting a sub-par solution without having fully explored the issue. This is something that ought to be solved by measurement and corporate culture - if you can properly measure your output, this time-based race to the bottom shouldn't be an issue, it becomes an output-based race to the top, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just bow out of the race when you reach your work-life balance. Quoting PG on HN is perhaps a bit like preaching to the choir but this is very appropriate: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
  - lmm 12y ago
    > if you can properly measure your output, this time-based race to the bottom shouldn't be an issue, it becomes an output-based race to the top, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just bow out of the race when you reach your work-life balance. True, but the assumption is false. As an industry we're terrible at measuring outputs, and sadly this causes management to fall back on measuring inputs. And even that, you don't get a free choice of. Working 75% as long as the rest of your team doesn't get you 75% of the salary, it gets you fired.