Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Star Wars Sickout

Posted by samzenpus on from the what-would-yoda-do dept.

Brahmastra writes "The New York Post reports that it will cost employers $628,880,000 in lost productivity on the first two days of Star Wars Episode III - Return of the Sith . How many of you are planning to skip at least part of your workday on the first two days?"

100 of 715 comments (clear)

  1. Fine... by MoxCamel · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...so I guess I'll pick up your slack AGAIN!

    1. Re:Fine... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most single people are used to picking up the slack of parents in the office, anyway. This time, it just gives the other people a chance to cut out for a day and make the family people who are always taking days off or leaving early (without counting it as a vacation or sick day) to cover them.

      Except people like me, of course, who wouldn't see star wars if my company paid me to take the day off and watch it.

    2. Re:Fine... by turtled · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...reports that it will cost employers $628,880,000 in lost productivity on the first two days...

      Or, as I read it, "George Lucas will be $628,880,000 richer in the first two days..."

      --
      "I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
    3. Re:Fine... by pr0f3550r · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I wonder if the Post has done any research as to how much worker productivity is lost by people reading their publication while at work? From their article they admit that they are making ASSumptions. I, for one, will be attending during the opening day. I think my employer will forgive me since I put in about 60-70 hours a week.

      Most people who are salaried are usually already putting in more than 40 a week. Anyone who is on the clock won't have to be paid during the time they are not at work (unless they are dishonest, in which case they are already probably screwing their employer). And losers on government subsidies already in line outside the theatres will finally be able to get back to playing Star Wars Stratego at home instead of in the rain!

      Overall I think it is better for the economy than worse.

    4. Re:Fine... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dude - I wish I had mod points right now.

      Picking up slack for the office broad that has a "cough cough" sick kid racks up hours. Over the course of a year - in addition to her two weeks of vacation time, and the 5 sick days and a personal day, she racked up close to 130 hours of "Oh I gotta leave" time.

      That's not counting her smoker time outside - which she managed to do at least ten minutes out of each hour.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    5. Re:Fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember one job in particular where I was repeatedly asked to work overtime because I did not have a family. I was part of a team, and the supervisor and the team repeatedly made the point to me that I did not have a family, so I had more free time, and because of that, I was expected to take more overtime (and it was a salaried job, so I did not get paid OT).

    6. Re:Fine... by Xugumad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *looks at parent* *looks at your message* *looks at parent*

      Huh? As far as I can tell you've read a little too far between the lines. Your message's parent seemed to just be complaining that they were expected to put in more time to make up for people with families.

      In particular, I see no reason for you to complain about being expected to work as many hours as the single people do. If your job demands more hours than you can provide, get a job that doesn't, don't expect others to pick up the slack because you feel we have more time available than you.

      Admittadely, flexibility may be an issue; if something needs rushed to completion, or you genuinely need to be away from work to look after a sick kid, I don't mind throwing in some extra time, but I expect for you to put in extra hours later to make up for it, and let me take it easy for a bit.

      On a related note; for those of us who are single, particularly long term single, free time for our social lives is key to changing that. Or would you prefer we stay single so we can continue to spend more time at work so you can keep a job that expects more hours than you have available?

    7. Re:Fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I used to work with smokers...15-20 minutes they would spend out of each hour out back lighting up, while I was expected to keep working away with my head down. When it came time to "right-size" the organization, I and another non-smoker got the axe. Noooooo...I'm not bitter...

    8. Re:Fine... by burnunit0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This may be your experience, but it isn't applicable universally. At our company we strive not to place undue assumptions/expectations on either non-parents or parents. When I go early to deal with an unforeseen childcare issue or take my daughter to the doctor, I'm expected to fill out a PTO form. When my single, child-free coworker leaves early to play golf he has to do the same. (The golf scenario is increasingly common as the weather gets warm--none of your child-free employees has ever made more work for the others?).

      I can appreciate your annoyance if your company doesn't use PTO and instead has that whole "sick time"/"vacation" thing working to foment suspicion between coworkers (it inevitably does). But I'm not sure you picked the right way to vent that spleen of yours-- are you mad at George Lucas or all of us irresponsible breeders? both? your company? neither? what, exactly?

      --
      yes. that's all I'm going to say in all comments from now on.
    9. Re:Fine... by JPriest · · Score: 2, Funny

      What makes you think all star wars fans are single you insensitive clod? I am single but what if that were not the case?

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    10. Re:Fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only on Slashdot do the conservative, boring parents go by names like "Profane MuthaFucka".

    11. Re:Fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      All you singles want to do is stay out late drinking, having sex, and smoking pot.

      Want to, yes, but we are Slashdot singles.

    12. Re:Fine... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll have to disagree with you on this. I'm single, I rarely stay out late or have that much sex (at least not to the point where it impacts my job), and I don't smoke pot at all. I'm also 22, and work twice as many hours a week then the other gentlemen I work with, who are twice my age and have childeren. Parents picking up the slack indeed. Call me when you're done working 80 hour weeks for 3 years and we'll talk. P.S. My drive to make money is because I want to be wealthy, not because of some inate need to want to have to support dependents.

    13. Re:Fine... by DissidentHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He he - that is some funny shit. It is amazing how all the 'normals' who want to have kids and do the suburban thing seem to think that the rest of us are 'rolling in the dough' and on 'easy street.' Did you ever wonder why there are more animal rights organizations than human population control causes? I have great respect for the 'family man' (woman) and ask my employees to put their family first (even at the risk of losing a customer) because nothing is more important. But just because I'm single doesn't mean I have no motivation, no drive and no incentive. Without a job I would have just as much trouble paying the mortgage and would not be able to the (different) things important to me (s.a. travel, philanthropy). That said - as the 'single guy' I volunteer for the travel and off hours so my coworkers who do have kids etc can have the 'usual' off time, sick kid care, daycare hours, etc. So there's the overt response to the (hopefully) sarcastic post.

      --
      "None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
    14. Re:Fine... by Seumas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not even sure if I am supposed to take your response seriously, since you claim to be a parent, but have stileproject.com as your homepage... However:

      The difference is that parents are able to use their kids or family as an acceptable excuse whenever they like. There is no stigma in doing that.

      "I have to leave two hours early every Friday to take my kids to practice", is acceptable.

      "I have to come in late today becuase my child has a doctor appointment", is acceptable.

      "I'm not coming in today, because my child has the day off from school", is acceptable.

      And it really builds up. Who knows if it's always legitimate or not, but using "children" or "family" as an excuse is rarely frowned upon.

      But if someone who has other obligations needed time off, they would not recieve the same treatment. Of course, parents talk about how hard being a parent is and try to get sympathy however they can, but the fact is, you're hired to do a job. The same job I am. That you decided to have kids and a family is not my responsibility or my problem. But when you take excessive time off over the year and the rest of the office must cover for you, it is my problem.

      If only sick days and vacation days were used, I'd have no problem with it. But I do have a problem that these excuses are often used to take time off that is not subtracted from those sources. They're taken in addition to, because the company can't look bad by being "anti-family".

      I also like how you try to make it sound like you bust your ass and it's the single people that slack off. See, we work hard, because we have to cover our own work and yours. And our drive is enjoying our money. Spending it how we like. We don't have this sense of self-entitlement to our salary, our job, our time off, our "off the books" time off or anything else.

      Parents don't even do half the work of a single person, because they spend the whole day on the phone talking to their kids or their spouse or someone else about problems they're having with their kids or their spouse. And then, of course, they start babbling to coworkers about their family life or their kids or their spouse. The amount of time lost to parents chronically avoiding their duties because of "family" is riduclous.

      And no, that doesn't apply to every parent. There are many parents who make work a priority and don't ditch the other people in the office with work because they had to go meet the principal during work time. But there are a lot who do. Enough that it has become a stereotype.

      As you see from the responses to this thread, the number of people who feel similar is not small. And we aren't against you taking time off from work for family. Just when you do it in addition to the vacation and sick time you already have. You should only be able to use sick time and vacation time. Just like it's all the rest of us have.

    15. Re:Fine... by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No kidding!

      I seriously hate that. If your smoking impedes your work that much, maybe it's a sign that you should quit. Imagine if I took five minutes out of every hour to go out to the lobby and masturbate?

      I think smokers should be put in a seperate part of the building with modified circulation systems that don't affect the rest of the building. No more smoke-break excuses. You want to smoke two packs a day during work? Great. But do it at your desk, hunkered over your work.

    16. Re:Fine... by Afrosheen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well most smokers would probably prefer that to being herded outside despite any weather conditions. Smokers are marginalized and ostracized enough as it is, no need to cry about working while they're smoking. At least they're smart enough to realize they need a break from time to time, you should try walking around for no apparent reason from time to time. ;)

    17. Re:Fine... by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you're the single person in the office, you don't have as much free time and social life as the married people think you do. Why not? Well, because it's the single person who is usually pushed into the odd houred slots (weekends, overnight, long hours, rushed deadlines) - not to mention they're usually the first chosen to have to travel on business and work holidays.

      I don't care what someone's excuses are for not being able to do their job or not being able to put in the extra effort that someone else has to. If it's because you have children - that's your problem. It is NOT my problem. If you have a drug or drinking problem, it's your problem, too. NOT mine. No matter what your situation is, it is simply not anyone else's problem. You can either do the work and put in the hours or you can not. It's that simple.

      I don't want to hear parents throw around excuses, as if being a parent excuses everything, anymore than I want to hear some crackhead making excuses. Both lead to someone else making up for their slack and both are unacceptable.

      Next thing you know, married people are going to demand higher salaries than single people, because it's not fair that single people can spend their money on something other than two or three four year old "accidents" and their braces or schoolbooks.

    18. Re:Fine... by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that while everyoen tends to get the same amount of sick/vacation/PTO days in any given company, I think it is quite common for parents to come in late, leave early, take time out of the middle of the day or not come in at all and not have it subtracted from their alotted accured vacation/sick/PTO days.

      And that is where a lot of single people get frustrated. If you have 20 days from various accruals to use in a year for whatever purpose you wish and you use them to take care of your children and household problems, that's great. If you choose to use them to go on vacation, great. If you choose not to use them at all, that's great.

      But if you use them to go on vacation and then you take additional time off throughout the year for family situations and you aren't forced to account for it, it is quite unfair to everyone else.

      StarWars people would piss me off if they didn't count the day off. And that was the contrast I was originally drawing. Imagine if the StarWars people took the day off, but they didn't have to count it as a sick day, vacation day or any other kind of accrued day? What if it was just not counted and they were paid for it, just like Jane Doe gets paid for the time she takes off to attend to her family?

    19. Re:Fine... by khoury.brazil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. If anything I bust my ass harder to make sure that my kids have food. I make sure I get my shit done so I don't lose my job. I may be an exception but I won't be knocked on for others actions.

    20. Re:Fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to misunderstand the words "not MY problem" *You* have the obligation to the job, *you* have the obligation to the rugrat. Nobody else's fault but your own

    21. Re:Fine... by itomato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "At least they're smart enough to realize they need a break from time to time"

      Huh?! They are not in control, buddy, the ciggies are.

      They are heading out like clockwork because they are *ADDICTED*.

      The monkey says, "Light up! NOW!!"

      I got tired of losing out on "smoke breaks", so I started taking my own breaks when I needed them - at 30 to 50 minutes per pop. Just hop up and vaporize.

      Where's Juddy? Smoke break - carton at a time...

    22. Re:Fine... by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then your supervisor and team were twats, and you should have refused (and I say that as a parent).

      Your time is your own, what you choose to do with it is nobody's business but yours. I can understand going easy on people with obvious outside commitments (such as a family, sick relative, evening course, etc), but not being harder on you just because you had free time.

      What you were being told was effectively "you have no-one to complain when you work late, so we own you". Fuck that.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    23. Re:Fine... by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know about the US, but here in the UK people are legally entitled to take time off work for exceptional circumstances. That includes, for example, caring for a dependent (eg child, sick relative) or partner, attending funerals, etc. There's no limit on the amount of time, other than that it should be "reasonable" and needs to be agreed with the employer. There's also no requirement that the time be paid, that's up to the employer and employee to agree between themselves.

      Parents will inevitably need to take care of their kid(s) from time to time, that's just the way it is. It only becomes a problem if they start taking the piss. If that happens, it's probably not because they're parents, it's probably because they're using their kids as a convenient excuse to grab some more time off. In that case, they should be dealt with as would any other AWOL employee.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    24. Re:Fine... by Diag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I sympathise. I've felt exaclty the same way about co-worker parents in the past. It can be very frustrating.

      However, I see it as an overhead of modern western society. Nowadays both parents have to work to maintain a reasonable standard of living for their kids. This was very rare for my parent's generation, but now it's the norm.

      It means we all have to be a bit more flexible with each other these days.

      And you can't really say "It was their decision to have kids." If nobody made that decision, we wouldn't get far as a species.

      --
      Serving Suggestion: Defrost
    25. Re:Fine... by Gumph · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, you managed to deduce all that from one single post on /.?
      you must be the new sherlock Holmes, can you tell me who killed Lord Lucan????

      --
      'By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes'
    26. Re:Fine... by daikokatana · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A company I worked with had a very simple solution to deal with smokers. If you smoke (no matter how much or how frequently) you either:
      - work 25% longer than the non-smokers
      - get paid 25% less than the non-smokers
      - quit smoking
      Simple as that.
      At the moment I'm in a whole different situation: my boss smokes, so he doesn't care about non-smokers. Here the policy is reversed: if you want to breathe clean air for a while, go outside. Fortunately I spent 99% of my time for the past years at client sites, so this does not affect me that much.

      --
      http://jcsnippets.atspace.com/ - a collection of Java & C# snippets
    27. Re:Fine... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In my peer group (16-18 year olds, mostly from a council estate) then a lot of them are pregnant, and most certainly not planned. Even more scary is the number already pushing prams and still trying to attend 6th Form (College).

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    28. Re:Fine... by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Both parents don't have to work. That's all BS. There are cases where both parents have to work, but that is because they are both only make 20K a year.

      If you count the tax savings, daycare savings, only needing 1 car savings, not going out for dinner so often savings, piece of mind that your children are being raised the way you want them to savings, and then stop and think if you really need the $500K home, or the $30K car, the 5K entertainment system, the name brand food thats the same as the no name food, the no name clothes that are the same as the name brand clothes. I could go on even longer. When all this stuff adds up, then the other job doesn't really make you that much, unless both jobs are making 60K a year. In which case, both parents don't need to be working in the first place.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    29. Re:Fine... by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe your experience is that way, but my (albeit limited) experience is the opposite. Many of my married w/ children coworkers routinely come in early, stay late, etc. Other single or just married w/o children are in the door at 7:30 and out the door at 4:00. Hourly/salary has some to do with this, but its also the type of people they are, but I usually see more salary people picking up the extra work then non-salary. Classifying all married w/ children workers as slackers is just incorrectly stereotyping us.

      It also helps to have a company that actually enforces sick/personal time. I get a lump of hours to use for being sick, doctors appointments for both me AND my family. If I need to stay home with a sick kid, I lose the hours. If I need to pick him up from school early, I lose the hours. If your company doesn't enforce it, then blame your company as well.

    30. Re:Fine... by gentlemen_loser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, this is supposed to be a lighthearted "this is what I'll be doing Wendesday evening" series of posts. Not this whining "married people make me work more" crap.

      But, since we're already talking about it and I'm too pissed off to talk Star Wars now...

      I've been on both sides of the fence. I've worked 80+ hour weeks and am now doing just about 40. The bottom line is this: if the company is having problems keeping everyone to about 40 hours a week - its the company's problem NOT anyone else's. Single people should head out at 5pm (or whatever the time happens to be) just like EVERYONE else.

      Now that being said, if your team is in a crunch (which is normal to happen from time to time), there is nothing wrong with putting in extra time to help the company get through the rough patches. However, if the company is constantly in a "rough spot" and demanding more hours of people constantly, there is a problem with the company not the employees.

      If you are single and being victimized, grow a pair and speak up for yourself. There is more to life than work. Like, Star Wars. ;-)

    31. Re:Fine... by firedeveloper · · Score: 2, Informative

      For you Exempt (Salaried) employees in the US, the current judicial interpretations of the labor laws do not allow employers to deduct Time Off hours for partial days worked.

      In other words, a salaried employee cannot be docked 2 hours of vacation time for leaving early.

      Technically if you do ANY work for the company on a day, they cannot force you to take vacation hours. (So while you are at Disneyland with the kids, send a few work emails each night....)

      Your boss, however can give you grief (or fire you) for not completing the assigned tasks. - So don't abuse the privelige

  2. Jobs? What jobs? by luna69 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What self-respecting SW fan still has a JOB? They're all in line already. The loss will be negligible. There might even be a net increase in productivity.

    --
    No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
    1. Re:Jobs? What jobs? by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, I'm glad I have the job I do. The boss has already done the same thing he did 3 years ago: He declared the day St. Lucas day, closed down the business, and paid for everyone in the company to come along and see the movie.

      We have strange holidays. In the past few years, we've had 3 St. Tolkein days, 3 St. Rowling days, a St. Roddenberry day, a few St. Warchowski Days, and even one or two St. Lee days (which he also called St. Stan-the-man days). Oh, and last Friday was St. Adams day, but there was some confusion about exactly when that day was, since everyone had towels wrapped around their heads so the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal couldn't see us.

      Ahhhh.

      It's good to be the boss.

    2. Re:Jobs? What jobs? by bcrowell · · Score: 2, Funny

      What self-respecting SW fan still has a JOB?
      More to the point, what self-respecting Star Wars fan has ever gotten laid? I couldn't care less about opening night, but I do plan to call in sick for the first day's internet availability of Natalie-Portman-pregnant-with-twins photoshopped porn.

      --
      Find free books.
    3. Re:Jobs? What jobs? by michaeldot · · Score: 5, Funny

      So how long has your boss been the manager of the comic book store?

    4. Re:Jobs? What jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dear TheWanderingHermit,
      I hereby submit my resume for your consideration.
      Sincerely,
      Everyone on slashdot.

  3. Fuck that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People have to learn to live off of 3 hours of sleep. The movie start at midnight on Wednesday. It will be over at 2:30am. I'll be home be 3am. Asleep by 4am and wake up at 7am. Typical night for a programmer.

  4. Cross-promotion by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wait, let me get this straight: The New York Post is hyping how popular they think the Fox Movie studio distributing the movie Revenge of the Sith will be. OK, let's see...New York Post (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp). Check. Fox (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp). Check. Cross-promotion? Check. Getting Slashdot to hype this to the fanboys? Check.

    Somehow, I'm not a bit surprised. :)

    1. Re:Cross-promotion by Colm+Buckley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This appears to be actually official policy in News Corp - many of its organs are used to cross-promote the others. This is most noticeable when it's grating, such as Sky News showing up in 20C Fox movies, but they can also be fairly subtle - such as this example.

      The British satirical magazine Private Eye has a fairly regular section devoted exposing News Corp. cross-media plugs.

    2. Re:Cross-promotion by poopdeville · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's nothing particularly right-wing-ed about this conspiracy.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  5. I'm going, but so is my staff by pwnage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not only am I going to Star Wars next week, I'm planning on taking my staff as well. So I guess I'll be the one responsible for the loss of productivity in my own area. Oh well, c'est la vie.

    --
    Reminder: Apple owns 1/255th of the internet.
    1. Re:I'm going, but so is my staff by beerits · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, that the french manage to be the 5th economy with only a fifth the population of the USA and despite their 5 week holidays and so many days off clearly indicates that they are far more efficient workers than the americans...

      or not

      California alone would be around the 5th largest economy in the world and it has about half the population of France.

      USA GDP per capita $40,100

      France GDP per capita $28,700

    2. Re:I'm going, but so is my staff by BackInIraq · · Score: 2, Interesting

      California alone would be around the 5th largest economy in the world and it has about half the population of France.

      USA GDP per capita $40,100

      France GDP per capita $28,700

      But straight GDP per capita isn't necessarily the best measure of worker efficiency. I'd bet that if you compare GDP to man-hours worked, the numbers for France and California are a little closer. France might even come out ahead. Because having a 40% higher (give or take) GDP per capita isn't as impressive if your people are working 20%-30% (if not higher) more hours per capita each year.

      (Often I would waste time actually going and finding these numbers, so my case would be stronger...but today I'm actually trying to get some work done. Damn job.)

  6. In other news... by shakezula · · Score: 5, Funny

    Star Wars Episode III will also consume 38.75% of the total available Internet bandwidth once a 1337 CAM is torrented.

    --
    I know what you're thinking. Did I forward 65,535 packets or 65,536 packets?
  7. Already planned out... by HungSoLow · · Score: 2, Informative
    Going at noon on the release date!

    Remember though... safety in numbers .. get a large group together and you'll likely stave off any tight-assed managers from complaining.

  8. Funny math by groke · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using the numbers on the article, each of the 4.8 million employed people who will see the movie will play hooky for the full day.

    So, if I want to go to a 7pm showing, I'll be costing my company my time for the whole day?

    Something smells a little fishy..

  9. Did anyone else notice... by DanthemaninVA1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that they got the title of the movie wrong?

    1. Re:Did anyone else notice... by WiKKeSH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Doesn't really matter at this point, does it?

      They could call it "Star Warz Episode Tres: Moneybags" and the same people would see it anyways. :)

      --
      Downmix - The Artscene News Source!
  10. I don't buy it by pyite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a flawed analysis. They study implies that these people otherwise wouldn't have these days off. People who get vacation time tend to either take it when they can so as not to lose it, or they accrue it to cash in later. It's as much a part of compensation as actual pay. On the other hand, hourly employees who don't get vacation time are only costing themselves money, so there's no business loss. *Sigh*, more people who think they can model the world with incredibly flawed assumptions.

    --

    "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    1. Re:I don't buy it by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Funny
      Projected economic losses from people cutting work to go to Star Wars III:
      • $628,880,000
      Projected economic losses from rioting if it has Jar Jar in it:
      • $843,111,644.77
      Projected economic losses from decreased self-esteem when people realize they got lured into paying to see this one, too:
      • $948,362,210.03
      --
      Find free books.
    2. Re:I don't buy it by biobogonics · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a flawed analysis. They study implies that these people otherwise wouldn't have these days off.

      Actually it's a stupid story. Why don't they write a story about lost productivity around November 15th - the start of hunting season?

  11. Since when did time off cost anyone anything? by showardkid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The fact is, you don't just magically get time off when a new movie comes out. Someone has to cover for you where you work, or your work doesn't get done. If your work doesn't get done, you get fired. How does this add up to billions in lost funds?

    --
    Do, do not, or delegate to someone else: there is no try.
  12. but, on the plus side... by Neitokun · · Score: 2, Funny

    all the gamers who don't go will get 20ms pings :D

  13. sick? by reiggin · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's a pathetic excuse. I'm just quitting.

  14. Re:This is Ridic. by hunterx11 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Perhaps they should carry lightsabers.

    No seriously, cheap plastic swords made in China are probably more than sufficient to keep anyone who would steal a ticket to Star Wars at bay.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  15. Hmmm sounds awfull... by ShatteredDream · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, right. This is the final installment in the series so it's not like this is going to be one of many "productivity hits" that businesses will have to suffer. You want to bitch about a productivity hit, why not bitch about the dumbasses who cannot follow IT department policy about opening insecure attachments and who do other things like that which open them up to worms? God only knows how much money businesses have lost to such willfully negligent behavior.

    --
    Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
  16. My Faith in Speculation is Still Waining... by Jinsaku · · Score: 5, Informative
    From the article:

    The findings are based on the assumption that attendance during the first two days will match that of the last "Star Wars" blockbuster, "Episode II -- Attack of the Clones," which attracted 9.4 million people in in 2002.

    Challenger estimates that 4.8 million of those opening-day attendees are employed at least 35 hours per week. With those full-timers earning an average of $130.60 per day, the two-day cost in terms of lost wages and productivity would be a staggering $626,880,000, he said.

    So, even estimating that their 4.8 million figure is right, they assume that all of these 4.8 million people will skip the entire day to watch a 2 hour movie? Not only do those attendance figures for episode 2 include midnight showings the previous night (I went the the 12:01 and was into work bright and early the next morning), but they don't even realize that probably *half* the showtimes are *after* work hours. I know a lot of people that are catching the Thursday or Friday evening of the show. Granted, there is a hit to production, but it's nowhere *near* the figure they speculate in the article.

    --
    -- Jinsaku
    1. Re:My Faith in Speculation is Still Waining... by Eradicator2k3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...they don't even realize that probably *half* the showtimes are *after* work hours. I know a lot of people that are catching the Thursday or Friday evening of the show. Granted, there is a hit to production, but it's nowhere *near* the figure they speculate in the article."

      Dammit Jinsaku, you make an excellent point. Perhaps the lost productivity is not from people taking time off from work to see it, but instead using their work time to post on Slashdot when they *should* be unclogging that problem crapper in the ladies room.

      Do I have to spell it out to you, Jinsaku? We're experiencing our own "Return of the Shit" (or "Revenge", whatever) in the john. Now take care of it.

      Sincerely,
      Your Boss

      --
      Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
  17. Re:At 31 Yers Old... by shogun · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where do you live again?.... :)

  18. Re:Don't forget lost education.... by StratoChief66 · · Score: 5, Funny

    dude, your sig is awesome, either that or you should really take a look at your sig cause Mike fuckin hates you.

    --
    Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
  19. Re:Not to be a spoilsport here... by Gondola · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Funny thing is, according to the short stories about the bounty hunters, Boba didn't die in the Sarlacc pit.

  20. The New York Post is hardly journalism. by crovira · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd take anything Rupert Murdoch says with enough salt to ruin my taste buds.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  21. The Darker side by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I sense a disturbance in the labor force. Its as if a million people all called in sick.

    --
    God spoke to me.
    1. Re:The Darker side by Seumas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Next week, every geek will take the day off of work to go see a god damn movie.

      And the very next day, they'll be back to whining about "why are our jobs being outsourced?!".

  22. No by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll skip work for a movie I know is good. As for this thing...I've been burned twice. I'll let all you guys go the first day. That way, I can find out on slashdot if it is any good, or is yet another Lucasonian fiasco. I can wait until the second weekend. If it's what I think it is, I can wait for the DVD.

    Serenity...I'm skipping work for that.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  23. Official Excuse Note by Silwenae · · Score: 4, Funny

    Download your official Star Wars Excuse Note to give to your employer / school / etc.

  24. Why do we measure things with money? by John+Seminal · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I don't get it. Is money God? Is money happiness? Or is money just something the rich dangle to make the poor jump through hoops?? There were societies in the past without money, they hunted, they had music, they danced and laughed. And they lived life on their terms.

    These people who are taking their days off work, they would have taken a day off for something else. They happen to enjoy Star Wars. I am not planning on running to the theater to see it, but I take off time from work every year for baseball games.

    The danger in these kinds of stories is politicians might start thinking "entertainment drains productivity". Lobby groups might decide workers need less overtime protection, to make up those losses.

    If you ask me, money is the least most valuable thing on earth. I'd rather take a hike through a park, or ride a bike.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Why do we measure things with money? by TheGavster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't ride a bike or hike in those fancy shoes if the people decide to not work the factories anymore. Most people's idea of recreation requires a good deal of industry to be as enjoyable as it is. You work hard to give yourself the ability to take some time off and enjoy the fruits of humanity's labors.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:Why do we measure things with money? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why do we measure things with money?

      Because money is fungible.

      Is money God?

      Yes, see above. But, God is not fungible so God is not money.

      Is money happiness?

      Yes, see above. But, happiness is not fungible so happiness is not money.

      Or is money just something the rich dangle to make the poor jump through hoops??

      Yes, see above. But, poor jumping through hoops are not fungible, so poor jumping through hoops is not money.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Why do we measure things with money? by Ed_1024 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So true.

      The next headline will be:

      "$2.7 Trillion lost in productivity a year by people going home to sleep at night."

  25. "loss" of productivity? by EvilStein · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pffft. They're assuming that any of us were productive to begin with. Judging by the sheer volume of posts on Slashdot these days, productivity is a pipe dream.

    I think that firewalling Slashdot would wipe out any financial losses caused by geeks taking time off to see Episode III.

    Then again, we're taking a work sponsored outing to see the movie. heh.

  26. If You Can't Fight Them, Join Them by Comatose51 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My employers decided that it would be smarter to rent out a theater on premiere day for a showing at 4 PM rather than have people skip out. No lines or sleeping in tents for me. It also helps that my company is a hedge fund founded by a bunch of engineering nerds. They want to go as much as we do. It's a win-win situation. Boost morale, prevent "sick" leaves, and satisfy your inner nerd. The company is run by smart people I tell you :-).

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  27. My employer loses $0 by Tiresias_Mons · · Score: 2, Funny

    because I'm normally just browsing the web at work anyways, so the net loss in productivity will be $0

    --
    "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
  28. Re:Thank GOD by Eccles · · Score: 2, Funny

    (and please, please, don't suck.)

    The funny thing is, most of the time my begging is for exactly the opposite...

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  29. Re:Good feminists get abortions by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good feminists get abortions? The world would be a better place if their mother's had.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  30. Tourism? by notAyank · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "It will result in increased spending on movie tickets and refreshments, increased foreign and domestic tourism, and increased business in shops near the theaters,"

    What's the justification for an increase in tourism?

  31. Cost to business? WTF?! by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does it always come back to the costs to business? When did they become more important to people? How about the costs to individuals caused by businesses (e.g. days cut from life-span due to job-related stress)? There's more to life than big business.

  32. Re:slashdotters, land of the lemmings by dvicci · · Score: 3, Funny

    That should be "too stupid to NOT see"...

    --
    ] D
  33. double standard by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or religious holidays. Or the first "beach day" of summer. Or when Lynard Skynard/Rolling Stones comes to town and all the baby boomers try to squeeze into blue jeans they bought 25 years ago. Or hang-over day after cinco de mayo. Or April 20th.

    Oh wait, the double standard.

    Picking on geeks is easy. Picking on religion, the boomers who run business, and minorities isn't. Its like the New York Post is high school all over again.

  34. Re:Probably most companies will make a profit by kbielefe · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's okay. Most of the IT staff at the company I work for think there are too many managers and executives.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  35. You work to live, you don't live to work. by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm also 22, and work twice as many hours a week...

    Call me when you're done working 80 hour weeks for 3 years and we'll talk

    I think most of us have been there, including Motherfucker. If you're not careful, you're going to burn out before you're 30. These are your prime years. Use them wisely.

    And don't fool yourself, working 80 hours a week is NOT twice as productive as working 40 hours a week. Not even close.

    Look when you're older and have kids, you have a good idea of what's important. Get the shit done in 8 hours. Go home and spend time doing the stuff that really matters. Anything else is probably a waste of your life.

    The other guy has more experience, and figured out how to get the job done in a shorter amount of time.

    --
    94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    1. Re:You work to live, you don't live to work. by Kharny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed, totally.

      I saw some statistics recently of averages by country in amount of time worked and the relative productivity. The conclusion of the report was that the best productivity is reached when people work 32-38 hours per week and worst productivity was 50 or more hours per week. Without rest and relaxation, your productivity drops, even in a 40 hour 9-5 week, see how much gets done on fridays.....

      --
      Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
  36. Re:Not to be a spoilsport here... by UrlorJkron · · Score: 2, Funny

    He wasn't the only one to fall in the pit...

    --
    The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth. --Edith Sitwell
  37. Re:What's this "Star Wars" thing? by syberanarchy · · Score: 2, Funny

    AH! I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE! You capitalized on the whole "Slashdot reader is a fat lonely nerd that lives in the basement" cliche. Boy, you are something else!

  38. At least it's better than the first two! by antic · · Score: 4, Funny


    At least this is going to be better than the first two. They were so bad that I had to take the *next* day off sick just to recover.

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
  39. I Sense something by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I sense a disturbance in the work force, although a million geeks all called in sick, then suddly turned off there mobiles.

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  40. Revenge of the S... by Riktov · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, they scrambled up the last three letters.

  41. Re:Cost to business? WTF?! by DeepDarkSky · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is very true. However, I think that the whole idea of costs to business is bullshit for another reason - we are entitled to take days off. Granted, we are talking about people using sick days to go see the movies - but we are entitled to sick days as well.

    A better system for days off is - in my company anyway, Paid Time Off. Basically, let's say you are entitled to 2 weeks vacation and 5 sick days per year, that's a total of 15 days. So they just give us 15 days off, paid, for any reason or purpose.

    If you get sick very often, it cuts into your vacation days. If you are healthy, you are not penalized with having fewer days off than your unhealthier coworkers. So if I choose to go see Star Wars and take a day off, it's not costing businesses anything - because those are days we are entitled to.

    Quite frankly, sick days are unfair - businesses give them under the pretenses of wanting to give employees the time, but then when they do, say it's costing the business.

  42. Re:Probably most companies will make a profit by rikkards · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless your job directly brings in money from a client you are considered a non contributor.

    Sad I know.

  43. No Lost Productivity. by NewStarRising · · Score: 2, Funny

    " Challenger estimates that 4.8 million of those opening-day attendees are employed at least 35 hours per week. With those full-timers earning an average of $130.60 per day, the two-day cost in terms of lost wages and productivity would be a staggering $626,880,000, he said."

    How much of this is from people taking the holidays they are entitled to?
    What next? "Going to church on Sundays loses Business $3,289,044,353,967 per week!" ?
    Every second that a person is not working his ass off for an employer is "lost productivity" ? ? ?

    --
    b3 4phr41d 0f my 4bov3-4v3r4g3 c0mpu73r kn0wI3dg3!
    MadDwarf
  44. It could be worse ... by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ah, the hazards of being single.

    In law school, there is the famous case of 4 guys who were adrift at sea and nearing death from starvation. 3 had wives and families, one was young and just starting his career. The 3 older men decided they'd kill the younger as the younger had the least to lose and they'd eat him. That's what they did. They were rescued the next day.

    So this reasoning has been used for worse consequences than your situation

    BTW, the 3 were convicted but later released with time served. Apparently, public opinion was that the 3 were reasonable in what they did, as they didn't know they'd be rescued.

    1. Re:It could be worse ... by enderwig · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In law school, there is the famous case of 4 guys who were adrift at sea and nearing death from starvation. 3 had wives and families, one was young and just starting his career. The 3 older men decided they'd kill the younger as the younger had the least to lose and they'd eat him. That's what they did. They were rescued the next day.

      It should have been the 3 with families that should sacrifice for the single guy. They already passed on their genes and burned up a bunch of their potential, while the young guy's potential will never be realized and hadn't his genes pass onto a child (that he knew of).

      Heartless bastards.
    2. Re:It could be worse ... by Tiggs23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ugh--and if he didn't agree (although the other three very well may have guilted him into agreeing), not only do we have no way of knowing, but murdering someone else to save one's own life is STILL MURDER.

      --
      "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." --Ayn Rand
    3. Re:It could be worse ... by Tiggs23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you're saying it's ok to murder one person, against his will (hence the term "murder"), to save the lives of three people? Hmm...sounds like democracy/socialism to me. Sacrificing the individual to the group.

      --
      "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." --Ayn Rand
  45. Certainly makes sense by sjonke · · Score: 2, Funny

    After you've finished watching the latest Star Wars abomination and realize that not only did you pay for it, but you could have spent the time sleeping or maybe recreating that crazy nail scene in Blade Runner on your own hand just for fun, you're bound to feel sick, so it makes perfect sense to take sick leave.

    --
    --- What?
  46. watch it later by thomsenb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why can't people just watch it after work? The movie's not going anywhere. It's ridiculous to skip work just cause you want to see a movie...grow up.

  47. Mega spoiler: Anakin is DARTH VADER!! by zardie · · Score: 2, Funny

    As per subject.

    Now you don't need to take a day off! It's good for us casual workers who don't get sick leave.

  48. Wait... by CrazyTalk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is the sickout for the day that Star Wars premiers, or for the day AFTER everyone has already seen it?

  49. Christmas. by Gannoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder how much "productivity" we lose due to Christmas.