Slashdot Mirror
Gen Y Tech Savvy, But Not Interested in a Career
jcatcw writes "Young people aren't choosing computer science majors because they take technology for granted — it's something to use not something to make a career. "By and large, this generation is very fluent with technology and with a networked world," according to James Ware, executive producer at The Work Design Collaborative LLC, a Berkeley, Calif., consortium exploring workplace values and the future of the workforce. That future may be in managing technology, which requires skills today's college students don't have: writing, critical thinking, hard work and just plain showing up. One of their primary concerns is a flexible schedule and healthy work/life balance."
good. If this bears out then those of us out of college can charge more and more to keep everything running.
If it's too difficult, I can't understand it !
Is plainly not taught anymore. Most people don't even remember how logic was taught for the past 2000 years.... geometry.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Yep, seems like pretty much every "new" generation gets the slam from the ones who came before. Us Gen X'ers were cast off as a bunch of slackers IIRC. In ten years we'll have some snotty Gen Y writer blasting the lazy post-college Gen Z's and ranting how the greedy Gen X'ers will consume the last remaining Social Security resources. Definitely nothing new to see here.
I work with Generation Y'ers and they aren't so "fluent with technology" that they don't need to get a CS education. Most of them still don't know the difference between RAM and a HD. They don't even know the units used to calculate the amount of RAM or the speed of a computer. Obviously, there are exceptions, but it's been my experience in a middle-class community of Gen Y kids that they don't know jack about a computer. Can they use an IPod? sure... but so can my 60 year old mom, big deal. That's like saying my Grandma used to be "fluent with technology" because she could use a typewriter back in the day. Having the ability to use it and having the ability to make it are two totally different things.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Remember when people would go around saying "I work with computers" when asked what their job was?
Now that would sound like "I work with paper."
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Most of you will be too young to remember "computer literacy" classes which strove to teach students how to use computers. The idea was that if you could use a word processor, spreadsheet, and touch type, then you'd be prepared for the careers of tomorrow.
It's all bullshit. God help us if "data processor" and "data entry clerk" are careers of the future. The ability to use a computer is about as important to "jobs of the future!" as knowing how to husk coconuts is to a Pacific Islander. If you haven't learned those skills in your everyday life, then you're screwed anyway.
The fact of the matter is that someone still needs to build all those cool things like Twitter and Facebook and Myspace and all the rest of the crap out there that these "technology fluent" kids are so good at using. As long as we consider them to be fluent, though, we are putting emphasis on the wrong thing.
I was technologicaly fluent at using a pencil. It wasn't my ability to use a pencil that made me the right guy for my job.
These stories simply reflect the fact that, for any value of N, people in generation N-1 generally do not understand technology that became available during the childhood of generation N. This does not make generation N more technically savvy than generation N-1; by the time generation N+1 comes around, generation N will not understand the stuff they have. This was just as true for the baby boomers using remote controls and VCRs that their parents couldn't understand as it is for me using computers that the boomers have trouble with. It didn't mean that the boomers were geniuses because they could use a VCR.
Probably sort of like how my mom can't figure out the internet really well, which I think is rather simple; on the other hand, I can't understand the compulsion 'them darned kids' have for constantly text messaging each other.
Just because you can use mass-market electronic goods does not make one 'technically savvy'.
Of course, this idea is nothing new. Every generation goes through a very similar idealistic phase. Generation Y is now entering its early 20's, and it's likely that this is the phase they're beginning to go through right now. So it's hardly surprising that they're rejecting formal instruction in a field that they already feel very comfortable in (as self-taught learners). Just part of them "finding their way."
Just a thought.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I was on the bus the other day and there were some high school bimbos (let's not waste words here) and they were all a twitter about the goings on of their MySpace accounts. On and on they yammered about which boys they liked and who's on what list and then they started talking about CSS, that is to say Cascading Style Sheets.
There is a point in your life when you realize that the world has changed, that "nerdy" topics aren't so nerdy anymore, especially now that they are in the mainstream.
Generation Y (ugh!) is undeniably using the tools around them to get things done, just as my generation did a decade ago with more primitive technology. But suffice to say, the reason to get a job in the tech industry is not because you want to play with what you're already using but because you want to create something new. This is not for everyone and I think regardless of the "tech level" society seems to achieve there will always be a minority of tech-career oriented people.
crazy dynamite monkey
Unlike how we grew up....many of today's kids don't play outside much. They don't get out and meet and interact with the kids in the neighborhood, which teaches some good people skills. It also starts engendering a sense of independence. Parents cart the around to planned, and rigidly structured events...soccer practice, lessons of some kind, etc.
We've also sapped out the competitive spirit that kids once had. We played games...there were winners and losers. You had to learn both sides of the coin. Now...we give everyone a trophy because the just participated. We lower the standards in classrooms, 'cause we don't want to hurt little Billy/Susie's self esteem. We teach the wrong things here...the real world is NOT like that, it is not one big happy area where everyone is equal, and treated equal. That has to be quite a shock. We've let kids slide too far with respect to discipline. While I'm not talking specifically about corporal punishment (I don't think throwing that out the door was good either), but, personal discipline...responsibility for actions. If kids screw up, Mom and Dad cover for them....I've heard teachers saying when they had a child acting up, and could actually get a parent in for a conference, the teacher gets berrated over accusing little Johnny of wrongdoing, rather than trying to work together to correct his behavior. Of course later little Johnny expects he'll be covered/forgiven if he's late for work, or just doesn't show up a day for some reason.
Do kids even work these days in high school? As soon as I was 16...I got my first job washing dishes in a medium end restaurant...I worked my way up to head bus boy (even back then in my state you had to be 21 to serve alcohol)...I worked Fri-Sat. evenings....and usually 2 week nights. I saved my money, and when I was a senior, my folks added a little money to mine, and I bought my first car (datsun 280Z). I don't know of any of my friends whose kids actually work jobs....everything is given.
I'd say a lot of this is the past gen. or so's fault....and these kids are in for a shock when they hit the real world.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There is a video professor ad where a woman laughs that her four year old is often more comfortable with a computer than she is. A lot of older people just don't realize that **comfort** is not a particularly big deal. Yes, most middle and upper class people in Gen Y are "comfortable with a computer" and other gadgets. So what? When I was in college two years ago, it didn't stop many of them from making many of the same mistakes that their equally **computer illiterate** parents made like not updating their software and trusting everything that came into their inbox that didn't look automatically like spam.
So you can plug your iPod in and sync up your media collection with it. How is that a practical use of your computer, the sort of thing that drives the economy?
I have to wonder... were there ever articles like this talking about basic skills like driving? "Younger generation more comfortable with horseless carriage?" Being able to use a computer? BFD. Who cares. Being able to write software, integrate components and mess with hardware are the skills that stand out.
Or maybe, today's college students are wising up to the fact that most businesses work their tech staff to the bone dumbing down reports so their managers could understand them, following step-by-step instructions for an hour when they could fix it in 5 minutes if given the chance and if managers didn't call their IT staff on their vacations/weekends to help fix the e-mail server cause someone decided to change the settings without IT approval.
I've heard of far, far too many IT stories from my friends and on /. to even consider going into IT as a career. IT is not the dream job many people believe it to be. Anyone who runs a simply network for a friend(s)/family knows how annoying it can be to get a random phone call from someone asking for help to access their e-mail.
Familiarity with Facebook and Bittorrent is different than choosing a career as a programmer or network administrator. Familiarity is not maintenance and/or development. The number of people familiar with using automobiles is a little larger than the number who choose a career as a mechanic.
Look, kids, I'm what they call a "boomer". They call us that because fireworks and guns were legal when we were kids. What? Speak up, I can't hear you! We were also known as "goddamned potsmoking hippies".
The next generation was called "generation X" or alternately "Goddamned cocaine-soaked Yuppies".
The next generation was Generation Y. They're also known as "Goddamn punks", "Sales Clerks", "fry cooks", "outsourced and unemployed" and "crackheads".
So your nomenclature is a bit off. These kids would be known as "Generation Z" IINM. Also known as "GODDAMNED KIDS GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!"
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
From my perspective as a mid-twentysomething, I agree with this entirely. I went away to college and quickly lost interest in pursuing CS or CE, Math, Physics, or any of the hard sciences, really. The kicker for me was the lack of a solid career path, and the way the folks that studied these subjects were treated in terms of on-campus recruiting, job fairs, etc. Meanwhile, business majors had no problems finding work, especially those who had some technical skills on the side. So I joined them, sort of, and ended up with a business degree in economics.
Coming out and looking for work, I was basically doing applied statistics, writing code for models and such, but would not even have been interviewed without the business degree. The bottom line is that someone with a stats degree could've done the work as specified, but they wanted to hire people who could write the models based on the business problem at hand (interpret it into a regression model basically, find out how to source the data to run it, write it, interpret the findings for management, etc). And I've done this for two different companies, so there's a chance it's not a unique hiring thing.
So I wonder, are people of my generation rejecting the idea of CS and other sciences, but using the concepts they learned from a few courses they took in that department in a business setting? If that's the case, like myself, I'd argue that the change is an emphasis on the application of these skills to business, not an abandonment in their education.
I'm really happy doing what I do, and while I probably lack the theoretical knowledge that a PhD in Statistics would have, my analysis in the business context is what's really being sought -- and I'm strong in that. I'm finishing up a law degree at night now, so I really can't wait to see how the technical skills apply in that profession. Lawyers are largely so tech/scientifically averse that they don't even consider the application of those skills in hiring, I've found. But the lawyers I've worked with here who have the tech or science background are tons better at their job. So what's it gonna be?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I know somebody is going to say that he has a great job, and they can never get rid of him, yada yada. But, that doesn't mean anyting.
What about people just entering the field? What about 5 years from now, or 10 years from now?
Who want's to spend $80K on a college education, and work their ass off. Then, toil for entry level wages for another 5 years, only to train their $5/hour replacements in the Ukraine, or whatever? Great "career" right?
Most IT work is tedious, and unimporant. The pay, at best, is nothing special. And employers seem to have an never-ending list of requirements, even for an "entry level" job.
I think it's safe to say that there are better career choices.
Right at the moment, people that work in IT aren't exactly a majority of the populous. As a percentage of the whole workforce, I'd be willing to bet that people keeping these systems running and designing new ones are a small fraction of the population. People that now, and have always been interested in the 'nuts and bolts' side of technology are always going to be around in the same relative quantities as they were before.
After the dotcom implosion, a flood of 'highly-trained' prima-donnas entered the workforce, many of them with A+ Certification or an MCSE and an expectation that they should be running the joint within 5 years. On top of that, wages dropped. Why would I want to slave for 12 hours a day in a data centre when I can leverage the skills I learned as a techie to improve the job I do in other departments? Computers ARE just tools, and the idea that a career in computers should be something to aspire to, is like saying a career in waste management is something to aspire to. People should aspire to a career that they will enjoy, not necessarily a career that someone expects you to be interested in.
Me? I dropped IT given my first opportunity and have yet to look back.
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
Call me a troll or this post flamebait, but it will be true.
Look at IT objectively - it's infrastructure. You do the jobs that make the background stuff work. Mechanics, machinists, equipment opertors, assemblers, all do this stuff. They diagnose problems and fix them. They assemble components built and designed primarily by others into a useful working product, often based on the experience of others.
Of course gen Y doesn't want any part of that. It takes effort and requires getting your hands dirty. Most kids out of school (in any generation, I might add) are looking for which CEO position will give them the best golden parachute. Nevermind that that's not how the real world works - their perceptions are based on seeing smart people (like them) on TV shows get to the top without effort. Some will eventually realize they have to make money, and they'll be IT ditchdiggers. Others will find their niche in retail sales, or construction, or some white collar paper-pushing position.
Nobody aspires to grow up and be a plumber, but the world still needs them. And, in case you haven't looked lately, plumbers can make decent money.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I support a gaggle of Gen-Y'ers and would like to point out that using technology is not the same thing as understanding technology. Even the graphic designers who use Photoshop at the expert level five days a week don't know simple things like how to burn a data CD. It's possible for someone to own a Smartphone, digital video camera, home network, etc. and have not the slightest idea how they work or how to solve even the most minor of problems.
This is not a slam, just a clarification. I don't see ANY generation having more tech skills than any other, and that includes the current teenagers who were born surrounded by technology.
P.S. I am an X'er
Ya, come in whenever you want. Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If a serious problem arises, and your manager isn't there, it'll have to wait too. Nevermind that things may grind to a halt.
The benefit to 9-5 generally comes when you need information from someone that doesn't operate within your same schedule.
Where I work we have pretty flexible hours. I get into work at about 6 in the morning, and I'm out by 2:30-3:00. I have a family I like to spend time with in the evening. Say you're working on a piece of a project that we are working on, and you've written some code that absolutely confounds me, but I think I may need to extend it to handle something else. I decide after spending some time trying to work out what's going on, that it's too much for me to bite off at the moment and I need to go straight to the source and see if you can give me a hand understanding what you're trying to do.
If you were in at a sane time, I could send you an im, email, or walk over and bounce a couple questions off of you. Since you don't get in until 4, I have to settle for sending an email or leaving a note explaining the situation and hope that when I check my mail in the morning that you A) replied B) understood what I was asking and C) Answered my question sufficiently enough to allow me to go about my business. If none of the requirements are met, that's now time lost.
Tossing aside all arguments that I should be fired for incompetence (maybe I'm a junior programmer who needs guidance), there's a legitimate need for all employees to be at the same place at the same time if they are working on related projects. If you're flying solo on a project that doesn't impact anyone - then where do you work, and do they have any job openings?
There are three kinds of "technology "fluent": To use the old car analogy
1) Can drive a car, knows all about car companies and which models have leather seats and what "anti-skid brakes" do
2) can fix a car. Can figure out what part is broken and do a "remove and replace" repair
3) Can design a car. Knows how to design body sheet metal so that it absorbs energy in an impact. Can model flame propagation inside a combustion chamber,
With cars e have drivers, mechanics and engineers. With computers it is users, service techs and engineers. So what the article says is that even though many kids are computer users few want to become engineers. Well "good" the ratio of users to engineers should be about 100,000 to one or maybe 500K to 1. It only take 10 guys to set up a cool web site that a million people can use.
"Children today are lazy, lack respect and have no faith" - Rough translation of Mesopotamian saying.
What really goads me lately is this massive latching on by the current mainstream press that Work/Life balance is some evil concept. It's as though striving to have a life outside your work simply isn't tolerable. Don't these tools who feed this party line when writing the articles want a life as well?
We are entering a time of extreme excess for the bulk of humanity in 1st world nations, it's okay if we all want to slow down some and enjoy this new world we have. Frankly if we all really worked as hard as people did thirty or fourty years ago we'd either run out of work or resources quickly. This is why we need to continue to push an information economy because its central resource is people something we still have plenty of (for now).
I'm amazed when talking to people on the East Coast and they mock West Coast things like Work/Life balance with derision and a wave of the hand. Unless you *really* enjoy your job above all else, what's wrong with wanting it to have less importance in your life? For most of us, work, is a means to an end. This is your only life, enjoy it! Take a vacation! Get drunk/high! Have sex! Do whatever makes you happy as long as it doesn't directly impede the joy of others.
--- I do not moderate.
Gen Y might not 'grow up' in the manner you expect. Not owning a home allows one to be more moble and less dependent on an employer. Fewer kids (or none) means more free time.
Times they are a changin', I'll get off your lawn now.
Blar.
Indeed, children these days are clearly lacking in theology and geometry. Their lack of logic and materialistic endeavors casts doubt upon their very souls! I would regale you with some astute philosophical musings from Boethius, however Lady Fortuna's wheel has spun me downwards and my closed valve is causing me to bloat. To the lavatory I go to seek respite!
Other's have already pointed out the 9-5 situation (people being there when they need to interact together), but, there is a more general point I'd like to address. This sense of entitlement, that the world needs to adjust to 'my' lifestyle and needs. Unless you are going to own and run your own business, that ain't gonna happen. Maybe this attitude comes from parent who start themselves jumping through hoops anytime the kids wants something or has to be somewhere (all activities structured and scheduled). Parents quit saying "NO". Unless you can employ yourself, and control your destiny....your expected to meet the requirements of the place of employment you choose. The world is not out there to conform to your lifestyle. That pretty much is a thing of the past after you leave college. Hey, if you can find a job that allows shift work like you mentioned...choose that one, but, they are few between, and most I know of.....don't earn that much and are largely janitorial.
With age and work experience...and years of accomplishments, comes increased position and pay. I'm not saying it is always justified, there will always be jackasses that make it to the top, but, then again...I never say someone is overpaid. Obviously someone is willing to pay those people that much, and frankly, I want to be one of them. I really, really like the things money allows me to do....and rather than try to customize the system around my wants, I try to figure out how to use it to make my gains.
Unless you can either learn to work the system, or work for yourself....you're gonna be left behind, and while it may be sad, the world really doesn't care about it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are only about 26,000 "computer science" jobs in the United States. Not "information technology", not system administration, not tech support, but the jobs where people actually research and develop new technology.
If you're really good, there are openings in the operating systems groups for the iPhone and the Palm. There's good technical work to be done there, the pay is OK but not spectacular, you will have no life, you get no respect, and few will ever understand what you did. (If you take the iPhone job, you get to meet Steve Jobs and have him scream at you.)
The trouble is, if you're smart enough to do those jobs, you can probably do better doing something else. Two smart young people I know, with Stanford CS degrees, are running hedge funds.
And that's the top of the field. Further down, it's much worse, endlessly fixing systems that could have been designed not to fail, but for which the costs to do that would have been higher than fixing them.
I'm not complaining personally; I've done very well in computer science. But I can't recommend it as a career choice today.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
They didn't like that answer and while they continue to promote technical careers at the high school level, they also lobby heavily for expanded H1-B visa quotas and press the State Department and DoD to relax restrictions on sending work overseas.
Kids are too smart these days. Whatever they do, they are increasingly interested in maintaining control of the market for their skills, rather than selling themselves off to a large corporation. Scott Adams had a Dilbert strip where he coined the term 'technological savant'. This is an individual who can solve the most sophisticated technical problems in his/her field, but is too stupid to compare paychecks between professions.
Have gnu, will travel.
That's funny, I do run my own business. I like to call it Me, Inc. I provide a service (my time and skills) to the highest bidder the market. Currently, the highest bidder is my employer and part of the price they pay for my services is a mutually negotiated and agreed upon balance between my time spent with them and the time I spend elsewhere.
I don't understand why, when 2 parties negotiate conditions in a relationship (contract, purchase, service, etc), if both of the parties are businesses, it's just a part of doing decent, respectable business, enlightened self-interest, free-market economics, etc. But when one of the negotiating parties is a business and the other is a worker/employee, then the worker's enlightened self-interest is characterized as entitlement (or socialism, if they do it collectively).
Why is it so hard to conceive of individuals as little self-owned businesses with valuable services to provide to employers at mutually negotiated prices? And let the market decide which way the prices go. After all, capitalism is all about free markets, right? And labor is another market. Regulated, like most markets, but still a market, nonetheless. I have seen many business people who tout free market economics when it benefits them and then with straight faces denounce the workings of the labor market when it swings in favor of the worker.
Employees demanding more is hardly new. People wanting more is what drives a capitalistic world. Just because the most recent generation value certain things (freedom of lifestyle) and demand those from employers does not make it any less of a demand than, say, demanding a higher salary or benefits for family members, etc.
This idea that people are "entitled" is nonsense. Everyone wants as much as they can have and more. Employers want hard-working employees for cheap. Employees want to work less for more pay (or other types of compensation). A compromise is reached. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Attitudes like "be grateful for what they give you" only cause one side to gain an advantage and speaks of a subservient mentality.
Life is way to short (and you only have 1) to slave yourself to a job with no say as to how to run your life. Considering you spend a very significant portion of your life at work I would say it is crucial to find a job that fits your life and not fit your life to your job. There are many tech jobs out there that allow you to choose your hours, provided you work hard, get your work done, and actually work a full 40 hour week. Every place I have ever worked has allowed this. In fact, it is one of the things that I demand from an employer before I agree to work anywhere. I have friends at other companies that routinely come in at 4pm. Me I like the evenings so I come in about 11 pm but I could come in much later if I wanted. It is this old school, lemming type mindset such as yours that allows upper management at some companies to still perpetrate the ridiculous 9 - 5 workday. If you are much better then average at what you do you will find employers will give you flexibility. So lemmings of the 9 - 5, grow some balls.
Closest I can find to your 26,000 figure is "Computer and Information Scientists, Research" (27,650). The iPhone and Palm jobs you mention wouldn't fall under that, they'd most likely fall under "Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software" (employment of 329,060). Then there's the 472,520 jobs in "Computer Software Engineers, Applications". And the 396,020 "Computer Programmers". There's also 446,460 "Computer Systems Analysts".
Running hedge funds takes an entirely different skillset. There's probably a lot of people with both, I've known a few programmers who went into finance also. But I think the part of the iPhone job most closely related to that is the "getting yelled at by Jobs", not the technical problems.
May the Maths Be with you!
Marriage and kids are completely besides the point when talking about employers giving flexibility and choice to their employers. After all, with that flexibility you could very well choose to come in at 9 - 5 if that suits your wife and kids, but why force that on others because it suits you? I know guys with a wife and kids that come in later because they actually find it useful to getting their kids off in the morning. Someone a couple of posts up made the point of increased productivity on a flexible workday system. You can't deny that people are more productive when they can choose to work at the hours their mind is the most alert. In that respect it is in the employers best interest to allow flexible hours since in the end they will end up getting more value from their employees.
Re your question "Can you show me any benefit my boss would derive from requiring me to wear a suit or that I must be in the office around certain hours?"
I can, actually, but not about the suit part. Even though I'm not your boss, I do manage a half-dozen engineers on my team... and I could care less about what they wear, btw.
What it comes down to for me is that (if you're an experienced, senior engineer) there's more than just tasking involved in your tenure. People from many parts of the organization have probably come to depend on your insight and experience to make effective decisions, keep themselves out of trouble, ensure that things are being done right, etc. Those people are usually not the senior folks (though they could be), and might include other managers & directors outside of your group or department. A lot of these are walk-up questions, or phonecall-on-the-spur-of-the-moment questions. When you're not there, they'll have to go to someone else, perhaps someone else they trust less, or perhaps someone else that doesn't know the topic as well as you. Then, when you slide into your chair after lunchtime, the damage of bad information or poor knowledge has already been done and you'll spend the next few hours of your valuable time correcting the issue or hunting down the wicked to get them to correct it. For your manager, it's a net loss of your productivity. As for the rationale of "I'm here to answer questions after normal office hours." Well, that's nice and everything, but it's better to have nobody around to answer off-hours calls so that the regular daytime coverage can be used and that the customer doesn't get the feel like the stated hours for support coverage are meaningless. Once a customer gets the idea that the hours of availability are not as stated, they'll ask for a lot more that isn't stated in the long run.
Really, if you want to work your own hours, you should work for yourself -- be a consultant, make a ton of money on projects you self-select, take vacations when you want them, or just start your own company.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
Of course you won't be able to work, because the guy that does the job your job depends on hasn't come in yet. That order, meh, it can wait until next week or whatever.
If someone's entire work process is dependent on another person being in, what happens if he's sick, or on holiday? What if he leaves tomorrow?
Obviously the minority of office jobs that require being in at the same time as other people are not going to do well at being flexible, but this doesn't apply to all or even most of them. Also jobs can still require "core hours" (although even without core hours, there will naturally be a significant overlap).
Also note that "flexible hours" doesn't necessarily have to mean "come in when you want" - it could mean having a choice of hours, which you then have to stick to. And "life balance" has nothing to do with it. The world isn't going to stop because one guy comes in at 9am and another at 11am.
This would have other benefits too, for example not having as much of a rush hour, and resulting in less congestion and pollution.
I don't understand why, when 2 parties negotiate conditions in a relationship (contract, purchase, service, etc), if both of the parties are businesses, it's just a part of doing decent, respectable business, enlightened self-interest, free-market economics, etc. But when one of the negotiating parties is a business and the other is a worker/employee, then the worker's enlightened self-interest is characterized as entitlement (or socialism, if they do it collectively).
... no more than 10 hours a day, weekends are fine, and complete absences of work should at least be announced).
You can. Negotiate for it. But don't expect to get paid as much as someone willing to dedicate their 9-5 to the company in question. In general, there are more employees than employers. So yes, the employer has the upper hand. Deal with it.
In my line of work, the popular thing is flex time. The rule is '80 over 2', that is, 80 hours over 2 weeks. They don't care how you do it (within reason