Slashdot Mirror


Star Wars Sickout

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?"

49 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 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?

    6. Re:Fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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...

    12. 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.

    13. 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?
    14. 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.

  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 michaeldot · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    3. 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. 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.
  4. 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

  5. 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?
  6. 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. :)

  7. 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
    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?

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

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

  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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."
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Official Excuse Note by Silwenae · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  15. "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.

  16. 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 /.
  17. 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".
  18. 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.
  19. 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.

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

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

    --
    ] D
  21. 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.

  22. 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.
  23. 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.

  24. 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.'
  25. 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.