Slashdot Mirror
Are 12-16 Hour Workdays Productive?
theodp writes " It's important to me,' former Opsware CEO Ben Horowitz recalls saying as he threatened a manager for termination because one of his subordinates failed to conduct 1:1 meetings, 'that the people who spend 12 to 16 hours/day here, which is most of their waking life, have a good life. It's why I come to work.' Ben seems to be cut from the same management cloth as new Yahoo CEO Marissa 'I-Don't-Really-Believe-In-Burnout' Mayer, who boasted how she solved the work-life balance problems of mother-of-three 'Katie,' who was required to attend nightly 1 a.m. video conference calls with her Google Finance team in Bangalore, by no longer making Katie also stay for late meetings on her Google day shift on those occasions where it'd make her miss her kids' soccer games and recitals." Jason Fried, C.E.O. of 37signals, wrote a piece for The New York Times recently singing the praises of working a 4-day week part of the year.
.. the answer is no.
And now that seems very valid.
13-18hr days are the norm :(
I find that occasional long days of 14-16 hours can be just fine. Doing it on a regular basis would kill my productivity after about hour 11. There is also an important element of engagement, which must be considered. If the project is interesting to me, and I am engaged, the long hours don't matter near as much as if I am doing something I hate.
I work 90 minutes a day. That feels about right to me.
...they would still be stupid.
Yes, on occasion:
I love this article and intend to quote it if I ever need to.
So I guess that's a 'productive' behavior, but it's probably not what my overseer is looking for.
It's crazy, working 12 or 16 hours a day, and that five days or maybe six a week? If you have no social life, earn $10k+ a month, if your work is your hobby, if it's your own business - maybe. I cannot imagine doing this, but I know people who live like that. I prefer a 32 hour workweek, all year, and here (in the Netherlands) this is very common. We do also have 25 holidays a year (for a fulltime 40 hour workweek).
If know that my performance will go down when working 10+ hours a day. I even think that 7.5 hours work would be more productive.
When I'm making on my contract work or just on a personal project (and not just IT-related), I can easily spend 12 hours.
Working in my full-time job as an employee for 12-16 hours? No way, you'd get 4 good hours out of me, and the rest I may just idle away.
As a former manager, I would not do it myself, so I wouldn't ask anyone else either.
Work at a safe speed!!!! Mistakes can be a lot more costly than a missed deadline or disappointed exec.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
It's funny how the definition of socialism has turned into "whatever the corporate bozos at the top don't like."
There is a standard for your corporate ivory tower types and there is a standard for the people in the pits doing the work.
You can "overrate" me all you want, but you know that this is true now more than ever.
But only if there was an adequate break in the middle of it. And by that I mean a good solid 2 hours.
Of course, this then means they would be at work longer since in most cases travelling back home and going back to work in that 2 hours would be completely out of the question for most.
So, add an extra 2 hours to that work position, since you are having a little nap at the office.
So, no, not for most jobs in current society.
Self-employed types will likely do better with this, and especially if they work from their own home or nearby office, or a job where physical presence isn't needed much, or at all.
Anything over 12 hour, especially excessive physical or mental activity, will just cause massive burnout that it will likely half their productivity in the worst of cases.
Imagine 12 hour school days. The kids brains would just melt out their ears. It'd be too much.
Let think about this:
+2 hours travel - If I take the the bus it takes me about an hour to get to work and an hour home.
+8 hours working (minimum usually 10 for me)
+1 hour lunch and breaks
---------------------
11 hours just to work
+8 hours sleep
---------------------
19 hours dedicated work and sleep
That leaves at best 5 hours for doing things like dishes, meals, wife, kids, laundry, continuing education, and most important showers.
So if you want stinky hungry employees who don't see their families then by all means push them. But you'll find the good one's will find other jobs in about 2-3 months. That what happened at my last full time job. 40% of teh staff left in 4 for weeks of each other and another 20% 2 months after that.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Sure, before you have a family, you can do bursts of 12-16 hour days. After a week the work product and morale will suffer, but your manager/company has to eat that up.
Once you have a family, it's abusive behavior. Not spending time with family/kids is how the American family and education got fucked up.
I am LEAST EFFECTIVE after the 8 hour mark every day. Same with all the co-workers, every hour after a standard 8 hour day degrades exponentially in productivity. In reality things start degrading at hour 6, but honestly we are still above the "typical productivity" water mark for the next 2 hours.
any manager demanding extreme work days is a highly uneducated and ineffective manager. Upper management needs to look at replacing any manager that is so bad at his/her job that the average daily work time is greater than 8.5 hours.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
My feeling is that if you need to work long hours, your job is badly designed. Studies have suggested that once over 44 hours a week, productivity starts to decline faster than the gains from longer working hours. I believe this; I've spent so long debugging code from people who thought pulling all-nighters was smart that in at least one case we might just as well not have employed him.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Is everything with Laura OK? You haven't mentioned her in ages.
Eight years ago I worked with my team of 12 for 110 days at 16 hours per day. We had to because the project was late (due to client's management and internal politics) and because we were paid by the hour.
Financially it was worth it, the pay was very good and let's just say it changed my life. In terms of accomplishing anything however, I think the money was not well spent. Everyone was so tired after 8-10 hours that they just faked it. Productivity was very low, the resulting code was crap, morale was abysmal even with the financial incentives. Luckily most of the team members were single (only 3 of us were married). After 100 days, no one could actually do any real work that required thought, we had to wind down for a month.
Like I said, I think it was a good experience (both financially and in learning one's limits) but I would not do it again. I don't think an artist or programmer can be productive more that 6-8 hours/day, everything else is browsing, chatting, faking it or simply doing bad work.
Anything past occasional shit-happens-needs-to-be-fixed-now overtime is bad management. When young people are involved, it's relatively easy to push them into pulling insane hours, because they may be single and want to prove themselves and don't know their limits and don't know any better, but it's not productive.
But not for me when I have to keep fixing the mistakes made by the guy who doesn't understand when he's hit a wall and needs to go home.
I find the 12 hour a day people come from 5 camps, the first are compensating for the fact that they actually suck. They know in their hearts that they suck so they put on a dog and pony show about how "dedicated" they are. Then they have something to lord over the actually productive people who are in for 8 hours or less. An easy way to detect these people is that they don't have any sense of proportion. They are working on a project to save some printer ink or whatnot and get mad at someone else taking time off for a very sick family member.
The next group (and often overlapping with the first group) just have OCD and don't know any other way. They would work 24 hours a day if they could. As with all things OCD they can't explain why they are driven to do what they do but they think something bad will happen if they don't. An easy way to tell this type is by the size of their spreadsheets. I have met OCD types with time management spreadsheets that went into the double letter columns.
Another group are screw-ups or frauds and don't leave because they need to control the whole situation and make sure that people don't step into their position for a moment and detect the fraud. This type often either avoids vacation or breaks it up into short little one so that nobody takes over.
The least frequent is someone who is determined to succeed at something where the benefits to success are huge, curing cancer or something and they are actually contributing to the end goal with every hour they put in.
The saddest is the over stressed employee who works for a crappy company where they have to give "110%" just to keep their jobs. Sort of the Glengarry Glen Ross thing of "First prize is a Cadillac Eldorado, second place is a set of steak knives, and third place is you're fired." These places tend to be family run where the family feels that every low paid employee should work as hard as they did once when they first started the business.
In almost all of the above situations the person is a bully and even if they are productive their insanity drives the the best employees away resulting in a slow but sure gutting of the company. The horrible problem is that for a short while it usually generates results. So you bring in the new type A manager and boom the team doubles productivity. Manager gets huge bonus. But a 6 months later 3 of the very best people have left. A year later those 3 have recruited 6 more of the very best. The remaining dregs develop ulcers and huge mistakes start to happen. The golden child manager successfully blames those who have left for the new problems. Then the golden child moves on to something new and more lucrative highlighting their success where they doubled productivity when they took over.
Are 12-16 Hour Workdays Productive? - This is the wrong question.
The Real Question/s should be Why ?
Why does the company find it necessary ?
Why can't they employ more staff?
Why do staff spend 16 hours at this company?
Why haven't they got a life outside of work ? (I mean come on 8 hours which is just enough time to sleep)
12-16 hour days 5-7 days a week WILL result in burnout in most people without significant time off to balance the shifts. There is copious research to support this. Yes there are some people who can handle long hours 8 days a week but they are rare. And no matter what they tell you, people that work those kinds of hours have no work/life balance. Most people can do long hours for short periods of time without major ill effects but they cannot keep it up indefinitely. Most people can do long hours if there are long rest periods in between though their productivity will almost certainly diminish late in the shift. Doing 10-14 hour days 3-4 days a week can work and I've seen people do it effectively. I've almost never seen anyone be effective 16+ hours into a shift and I have seen the effects first hand enough times for it to be more than anecdotal.
If people work those sorts of hours voluntarily, are compensated appropriately and both employer and employee are ok with it, then I have no problem with people doing it - HOWEVER their productivity is unlikely to be optimal.
Let's put it this way: if you're a CEO, middle manager, project manager, or generally a useless tool that jerks off to powerpoints and wastes other people's time on conference calls for a living... Sure. It's more time for pointless meetings and the aforementioned jerking off. But on the other hand, you could improve your company's productivity more by jumping off a fucking bridge to your screaming demise.
On the other hand, people that actually think, produce, and advance society in some meaningful if small way need a break now and again. Crunch time is a fine thing sometimes, but what's the point of working until you have no personal life? Idiocy.
Norway: 34 hour work week
Denmark: 37,5 hour work week (includes paid break)
Sweden 38 hour work week (excluding unpaid breaks)
And Norway and Sweden are amongst the richest, most successful places in the world. We have a minimum of 4 weeks vacation each year, we perform better because were well rested and healthy.
and they should be treated like the sociopaths that they are.
When I read responses like that I wish the modding system had a "-1 Moron" option...
there is this one 7 on 7 off 12 hour night job and they have issues with people staying up for that.
Who can really do that kind of shift for long and stay productive? Much less be 100% on day 7 after 5 hours?
Lordy. I know I shouldn't have RTFA, but this guy Horowitz comes across as the biggest asshole not featured on a .cx TLD.
When Steve came into my office I asked him a question: “Steve, do you know why I came to work today?”
Steve: “What do you mean, Ben?”
Me: “Why did I bother waking up? Why did I bother coming in? If it was about the money, couldn’t I sell the company tomorrow and have more money than I ever wanted? I don’t want to be famous, in fact just the opposite. ”
Steve: “I guess.”
Me: “Well, then why did I come to work.”
Steve: “I don’t know.”
Me: “Well, let me explain. I came to work, because it’s personally very important to me that Opsware be a good company. It’s important to me that the people who spend 12 to 16 hours/day here, which is most of their waking life, have a good life. It’s why I come to work.”
Steve: “OK.”
Me: “Do you know the difference between a good place to work and a bad place to work?”
Steve: “Umm, I think so.”
[continues to drone on in this patronising and insulting vein...]
He sounds like a reject from a 50s infomercial.
What an insufferable prick.
At my previous gig, I was a technical lead in a pretty large technical project. Because the company didn't want to budget for having software testers in our main office in New York (and, more or less, rightfully so; most of the company's internal software was coming from Manila by that point) and deadlines were tight, I had to be online with our testers over there for most of their shift so we could resolve bugs somewhat quickly. While I came in much later than normal to adjust for this (12pm instead of 9-10am), I was also working later as a result (b/w 2am and 3am, usually).
Being pulled apart by two other similarly-major projects didn't help either and my team-mate was way too busy and burnt out to take on much more. My sleeping cycles were definitely thrown out of whack for a while, which never helps. As a result, I was more irritable and less tolerable and social than I normally am. I usually enjoy spending my free time going out with old friends and making new ones, which became practically impossible with this setup. I thought I was fine since my health was still fit and it didn't feel that bad, but I realised how bad things actually got after I switched jobs a few weeks later.
It's not about the hours you work. It's about the results that come out of your time at work. Someone that works three hours a day but produces significant value for his or her company is way more useful than someone who puts in his or her "eight hours" with nothing to show for it.
I don't think I could get a lot of work done in just 4 hours every day.
On a related note, why can't I post with my user name?
I am logged in on the front page, but when I click on one of the articles I'm not logged in anymore.
When I try to log in it takes me away from the story page and the problem repeats.
Missing "work?" No, I've been missing a lot of meetings.
(For managerial, talking is working. For technical staff, meetings are precisely the opposite of work.)
call centers / data centers can try to save with 12 hours shifts but how much is lost to people slipping off after say hour 10? and more then 2-3 back to back days is pushing it as well.
Now with more staff working 32-40 hour weeks with say 6-8 hour days can be more productive even with a hire labor cost.
Read his post history, he's not a moron but a certified loon. Some are quite funny.
... but don't touch my mandatory 29 holidays per year + 11 federal holidays + unlimited sick time (Germany). I'll work hard when I'm in town, but when I'm out of town (40 days = 8 weeks mandatory / year), I'm really out of town, usually not even in Germany, nor Europe for the most part. "Work hard & play hard."
Nobody ever died wishing he'd spent more time at the office.
Once you get a homelife and kids (assuming you can squeeze dating into your 16-hour workdays) you'll hopefully realize how precious that is before it's too late.
As a European I find her use of "positive" rhetorics/manipulation to be worrying... like she is offering you something, namely a chance to do "what really matters to you" while at the same time she robs you blind of the biggest part of your free time and this fact isn't even part of the discussion. So you lose 4 to 6 hours free time each working day and get 1 or 2 hours back "to be with the kids". Sure, what a great trade-off for the employer. Sure she could do it in 1999 when she was in her early 20s, now she is 36 and I doubt she does 16 hours each day and if so then how long does she think she can keep it up? If work is all you have in life, sure you can invest the maximum of your available time in it but you know, for most people it is NOT all they have in life. I think this is recklessly endangering her own health and as someone in important positions like this, she actually OWES it to her company to take care of her health especially well.
And what a well-researched "opinion" to simply claim "burn out" does not exist.
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
Air Traffic Controllers have been sleeping at the post over nights and some times even in the days and the schedule has a lot to due with it.
Just left a company that "leveraged" salaried staff to make up for bad business deals, poor project management, etc. Our project manager used to say "when our client's day ends, ours is only half over"... Leaders thought it was funny. There were three types of people: -Those who defined their "boxes" so they could do a lot of "that's not my responsibility" in order to keep their workload manageable. -Those that attempted to pick up all of the dropped work (i.e. the people that burned themselves out) -Those that said "enough of this crap" and left (many like me) You are fooling yourself if you think it is sustainable or productive. I'm now smiling when I get home. Have already lost 10 lbs... YMMV
“In summary, you and Tim are preventing me from achieving my one and only goal. You have become a barrier blocking me from achieving my most important goal. As a result, if Tim doesn’t meet with each one of his employees in the next 24 hours, I will have no choice but to fire him and to fire you. Are we clear?” Digressing from the topic a little, but an arbitrary threat of firing over that? What if: - Tim's team have a very important deadline to meet the next day?Is it more important that the deadline is met, or that a one-to-one meeting is held? - Tim doesn't make it into work that day, due to illness or other extenuating circumstances? I realise the typical CEO response to that would be to shout "Don't make excuses!" and then to fire people. As they do. And yes, 12-16 hour days is a lunatic amount of time to expect people to spend in the office. Unless your job is to stand on a production line putting things into boxes - i.e. next-to-no thought required - then you will not be able to perform as well at work after a certain amount of time.
I work to live, and while I really do enjoy my work, I don't enjoy it so much that I'm willing to sell the majority of my life to a faceless corporation that won't remember me five minutes after I've retired. I work as much as I need to in order to pay the mortgage, and the rest of the time, I travel, study, read, and compose. The hours that exist outside of work hours are simply not for sale at any price.
When I am in charge of my own projects I can go on for 20 hours plus, but when I am on a monthly payroll from an employee I find it harder and harder to continue doing this as it just isn't worth it in the end for me. I do have every bit of capability to work like a slave who fears for his life, just not for mediocre products (for average pay) that I do not really believe in like at my last workplace.
There are two kinds of riches.
One is the big house, the fancy new car, all the toys.
The other is time with your family, friends, time for yourself.
I've worked the crazy hours, made a ton of money, and I'd go home and I did not know the people there -- my wife and daughter.
Decide what you want. Make trade-offs for work/life balance.
You can get another job pretty easily. You cannot get new family or friends so easily.
Are 12 to 16 hour work days productive? Yes, if you only care about the money.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
Perhaps this guy should take a look at how his employees view his company: http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Opsware-Reviews-E11055.htm
Doesn't look like those 1:1 meetings are really paying off in "that the people who spend 12 to 16 hours/day here, which is most of their waking life, have a good life."
Is burnout the only issue?
Sure, there are people who can work those hours for a very long time. Without any hard facts, studies done over decades, there's no real way to tell.
Honestly though, do you want to work for so much time? Don't you have some hobbies, some things you love to do in your spare time? Would you need so much money, that you're ready to give up a good part of your life for it? English is not my native language, so don't misunderstand, I'm not saying work is a waste of time. It's not, it's actually very important, people will need to work, to keep themselves busy for most of their lives.
Look at the Japanese. They don't work those insane hours, but get as much productivity. Besides all that, after they retire, they still keep themselves busy by working in other fields. Western countries on the other hand, say that when you get your pension, then you can laze about waste time or travel from time to time.
Workaholics, because that's the only thing people who like this schedule, can be, go through some stages, at first, they dedicate a lot of time to the job, because they don't have a choice. Men are expected to be the money bringers, and women need success in time to stop working and then start a family.
So, they work and work and work. After a time, they don't want to go home, because after even just one year of that intense schedule, the no longer have friends or hobbies. Nobody and nothing is waiting for them, just a bed and chores.
They keep on working, and keep on working, years pass by. But, by now, work replaced every aspect of their lives, lookup substitute addiction, because that's the same thing, so, now when they want something more out of life, they have no choice, but to sacrifce some aspects in favor of others, but not at the loss of work time.
Then, comes retirement. They stop working. Some remember dusty college dreams to travel to do something else from what they did for most of their youth. But when they pickup something, a hobby for instance, they simply everything the job meant to them into that hobby. They don't enjoy that hobby, but the fact that they have something to do, that requires attention, and get another fix for their workaholism.
From the corporations point of view, it's actually very interesting. Quite simple really. Say, John works for the Company. He's one of the best people around in his field.
The company requires him to work 12 hours a day. For the extra 4 hours he gets increased pay. What does the company gain? Well, instead of hiring and training someone as good for the normal pay, but fewer hours since the load would be split with John, they slightly increase their costs by adding a "little" workload for John.
I can't even comprehend why anyone would agree to working more than 9 hours a day unless its their own business. Time is much more precious than money. And nothing is more precious than valuing and appreciating your own life.
Are 12-16 Hour Workdays Productive?
Sometimes out of necessity, we have to hit the meat grinder and simply do a death march, say near the end of a product release. Or, in other circumstances, you might have a development/deployment cycle of, say, 4-8 weeks, and the last 1-2 weeks involve a lot of grunt work that burns the midnight oil. Or in case of emergencies.
In those cases, yes, a 12-16 hour workday, or a week or two weeks like that will be productive. It will not be productive if you measure your hourly productivity on those weeks compared to your regular work week (if there were such a way to measure personal productivity on an hourly/daily basis.) But it is productive to the project and employer (to whom we are responsible) in the sense that we get shit done.
The world is not perfect, and plans certainly are not. Things happen along the way, so at some point, we need to get shit done no matter what (which is why we get paid waaaaaaay above average salaries.)
Having said that, if your regular workweek is always 60 hours or more, there is something wrong with your productivity (or lack thereof) or your work environment. It is simply not sustainable. People might be able to be productive with such amount of work hours when their productivity is measured in units produced (say in a manufacturing conveyor belt.)
People are very strong animals - I use the word "animal" in a natural/biological sense. People are built for endurance, and they can simply push through extended conditions of physical activity that will kill most animals. Zone out if you will (one of the reasons we became apex, cursorial pack predators.)
But when it comes to creativity and engineering, that productivity does not translate linearly with the amount of hours put to work. Our minds did not evolve to do that (and Nature in its mysterious ways must have a really good reason for that.)
One of the main keys of this is motivation. If you are forced to work 60 hours or more week after week, chances are you don't like your work at all (who would under such conditions.) So there is no motivation to keep going productively (a key ingredient in creative/engineering work.)
Contrast this with enterpreneurs/business owners or people climbing a technical/managerial ladder. They'll push through 60 hours or more for years and still remain productive. Why? Because they have a personal stake.
. In projects that require long, prolonged death marches (cue images of French soldiers crossing trenches in Verdum), you see that a function of management failure. Other factors will include the quality of workmanship, processes, products, and to a great degree, professional ethic. In such a situation, people (sane people that is) find themselves prisoners of such conditions, and will not have a personal stake on their labor.
They have to put the hours, but the key motivators are missing. So productivity goes to shit. Worse still, quality degrades, and the company or project would have been better off working less hours.
So, in summary, it depends. Do you work long hours because you want to, because you have a personal stake on it? Or because you are being ordered from the top or because the product you work on (or the conditions therein) are so shitty that you don't find any other way to get things done (correct or otherwise) than to perform death marches week after week?
Well.. that's a non sequitur if I have ever seen one...
I'm currently working in a deployed military environment. One of our senior leaders said, publicly, that the expectation was 16 hours of work, 2 hours of physical exercise, and four hours of sleep per day. For a year.
There will be those amongst the leadership who will "work" 15+ hour days the entire time out of pure fear that someone might come to their desk at whatever time of day or night and notice that they're not there. Or, conversely, because maybe someone will notice them there at 2 AM, decide that they're dedicated or driven or insert buzzowrd here, and it will reflect in their performance evaluation. One of these leaders is, of course, my boss.
It's an extremely unproductive and toxic culture that, from my experience, flourishes anytime you have too many overcompetitive people in the same organization.
If you think a 1 AM conference call is rough, think of the poor saps in Bangalore Maine who had to be there at 4 AM!
Denial is the first symptom. Trust me, I know too many people who suffered from it. One of them was a sysadmin who was proud that his pills made him stay awake for 24 ours so he could work that long. It took 3 months before he collapsed. He was in such a bad condition afterwards that I wonder if he ever could have a job again.
Alas it does not matter if you believe in burnout. Burnout believes in you.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Once you weed out the people who can't handle it or have a life outside the company, or are just unwilling to place the well-being of a money-making enterprise before their own. The people left after the culling are enormously productive.
I think the question here isn't "is it productive", but "at what cost?"
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
I can't make my 4 hour work day productive.
The Germans look pretty well-fed to me.
Are they productive compared to an 8 hour work day? Maybe. Maybe they are 4-8 hour workdays plus socialization time. At Google, for instance, the fairly experienced employees I know work in departments where the norm is a ~12 hour day at work, but 1/3-1/2 of that is spent chatting, taking exercise classes on the Google campus, or drinking Google's in-office company-supplied hard liquor.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
I regularly work 16hr days - but it is for my own company.
Would I work 16 hour days for a $100,000 annual salary? Yeah, no. But, equity stakes, large bonuses, overtime - you have my attention.
I don't work because it is fun, I work to acquire money.
That could get me to work those kind of hours. None. Ever. I've turned down incredibly good offers (even laughed at one person who tried to convince me that it'd be great for my career and my family could come second for a few years) because there was no sense of work-life balance. Now it may be because I'm a few months away from turning 50, but I seriously have never had any clue whatsoever what drives people to even consider spending that many hours at work, even for short sprints. That sort of work is the result of nothing more than bad planning and lack of empathy for other people. I have far more important things to do than work more than the 35-40 hours I do, even if it's just weeding the lawn and dead-heading the petunias while humming Coltrane tunes to myself. No one ever died thinking "I'd wish I'd spent more time at work." Now, back to the book I was reading.
DaveyJJ
I think "engagement" is a key term here: it suggests your personal, intrinsic motivation is the most significant factor. Do you have kids? a significant partner? elderly parents to care for?
For many people their external commitments modify the extent to which they can achieve the commitment that their intrinsic motivation would allow.
In many cases this only means easy compromises like hobbies biting the dust (classic parent situation with hobby artefacts rusting away in garage/loft etc.) but for some people this means having to decide on a more serious level: you might be really engaged in your work but if you have to check that your elderly mother living alone is ok, then work's got to take second place - or some extra planning is required.
(I understand you state "occasional" so perhaps you negotiate these sessions given your other commitments).
You won't hear any arguments about this from Europeans. Not that they agree with 16-hour workdays: you won't hear any arguments from them because the entire continent is off on vacation for the month of August.
They are not productive. Neither is going to the office apparently. http://www.ted.com/talks/jason_fried_why_work_doesn_t_happen_at_work.html
#1. I work, so that I can earn money, to support my life and family. My enjoyment of life comes from my family, not my work. If work significantly interferes with that life... there's no reason for me to go.
#2. 12 to 16hr days are ok... when they are rare. I can get a lot done by spending an entire weekend on a major project.
#3. 12 to 16hr days consecutively for any period of time are terrible. The only people that find them preferable are the young who wish to have a few extra days to get plastered per week (I used to be one of them) but as soon as you have REAL goals in life, they become untenable.
#4. Look at the VPs in your company... look at the president... do they work for 16hrs strait regularly? No? In business there are leaders, and there are worker bees. One set gets paid more than the other. Be careful what you're setting yourself up to be.
Great for businesses to squeeze the lemon to the last drop from every employee and to have everyone always-on; not so great for the employees. Why bother even having a family or a home if all time is spent at work, thinking about work, or dreaming about work. And yes, I have "been there, done that".
An article in The Guardian listed the top five regrets of dying people:
Lots of people probably feel trapped in the current workplace due to debt, running expenses, or an expensive-to-maintain self-image, which requires maintaining the current position or even advancing the career. My advice is to think outside the bubble, e.g. move to a cheaper location or cut back on luxuries. If not possible today, actively pursue opportunities to make future changes.
8 hours sleep.
8 hours work.
8 hours leisure (which INCLUDES travel to/from work and everything else).
I think you should be grateful that you get ONE HALF of my entire waking life every weekday. And I *earn* the weekends by not doing a crappy job.
Weekends are also my buffer if you don't pay me enough, I have an emergency of some kind that needs me to work for money, or whatever else. Out of respect for the working agreements, I won't do that as a night-shift or after work during the week without your permission, but if I suddenly need to earn money at the weekends too - that's *my* business. Even if it's just flogging some old tat on eBay or a boot sale.
And there is "work" outside of paid work too - I either have to pay some professional to do some DIY or do it myself. Either way, that's more of my earned money and free time I burn up *NOT* lazing around the house.
Anything above and beyond that is for something:
- that was caused by something stupid that I did (including lack of planning!). I *will* rectify my mistakes if they've caused some provable, detrimental effect on the business. That's professional pride.
- is absolutely vital, cannot be put off, and cannot be done by others during the working day, is voluntary and that I will expect back in kind (notice: not money necessarily, but when I want a day off later in the year, or better tools, or training, or whatever, you better not get snarky about it).
Anything outside those criteria? You're trying to steal my life for your company and the only recompense I can possibly EVER reap is money (if anything!) which can't cover the sort of ills that work like that can cause.
If you regularly work more hours than that, you either have no concept of life outside work, value money too much, or you are, quite honestly, weak-willed or mentally ill (e.g. depression, anxiety, etc. causing you to not want to say No).
The bigger question is: What does the company get out of employing tired drones? Savings on wages for any "free" work they can make you do? That's about it. They should be hiring someone else instead, if they cared about their customers, products or services. Better an extra part-timer for a year than wearing your best workers into the ground chasing some mythical business utopia. And if they can't afford that? Then they were doing business on a knife-edge all along and are probably better off without staff anyway.
You can ask me nicely and "bribe" me for some short-term changes to my contract. Anything longer and you're not upholding your responsibility to your customers or your staff by doing a shoddy job where you should have hired more people.
When you have half my waking life during work-days and you want more? Then I look elsewhere for someone running their business properly rather than a cash cow obtained by grinding up lesser employees.
And, really, if you can't do something in 8 hours, 5 days a week, then you have problems bigger than what you can squeeze out of your employees. Some of the most productive countries in the world work less, on average. And anyone who's worked for themselves knows - you actually earn a LOT more when you just do the job and nothing more, get paid for the day, and go home.
Hell, when I was doing THIS EXACT JOB, but on a self-employed basis, I was earning the same money in less than half the working time. The difference is stability - chasing potential customers, economic fluctuations, insurance, etc. is all a gamble. At any time, you could be doing NO work at all, and not be able to find any. The way out of that is to scale up so that losses are absorbed by profits elsewhere, etc. which is a net gain - you actually make more money out of 10 people working 8 hours than you do 1 person working 80 if you do it right. The *stability* of a good job that you like is just-about worth half-your-money.
The cost of even the best job is unlikely to be worth half-your-waking-life, though.
Bloody hell, people. You hav
It isn't the quality that matters, just the quantity.
1. Sloppy work.
2. Work filled with errors (not just sloppy, but defective).
3. Resentment.
4. It puts the company as risk of sabotage and theft.
5. A bad reputation....does anyone really want to work at Dell?
I think that in all likelihood the vast majority of achievements in the world came from people who were NOT compelled to work 12 hour days. They may have been working long hours, but they did that because of their passion or competitive drive...they wanted to.
But unless you are on some legitimate high states deadline, long days for the sake of longs days is a bad idea all the way around.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
to get the job done. If it is 8, then 8, but, sometimes, clocking out at 5 is NOT an option. Successful businesses work until the job is done and don't worry about what the clock says. I can't stand to work with people that watch the clock, more than they do actually working. If you are that lazy, get the hell out and let me work with someone that actually wants to work.
Let's see here, in addition to the productivity issues of working more than 8h per day (shown in multiple studies); working 12 h (say, from 09:00-21:00) will in many cases leave you without the ability to go and buy food in the grocery store (depending on where you live of-course...), it will prevent you from getting a workout, and it will prevent you from meeting friends, wife, kids, et.c. Push that up to 16, and you will have about 8h left per day, assuming you only need 6h sleep (very unlikely with days that long), this leaves you with two hours for eating breakfast, getting to and from work, showering, doing your groceries, washing your clothes, getting dressed/undressed, reading the newspaper et.c.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
You could make people work twice as long every day for the same salary. Why hasn't this been done yet?
> former Opsware CEO Ben Horowitz recalls saying as he threatened a manager for termination because one of his subordinates failed to conduct 1:1 meetings,
"RAAGH! I AM THE ALPHA DOG!
I AM SUPER RICH MANAGERS MANAGER AND FIRE UPON WILL! HEAR MY SOLILOQUY!"
Ok, so either someone knows sociology is trying to troll people, or someone who doesnt understand sociology is making loaded statements full of generalization.
There are people who are affected by burnout and some who are not. There are people who don't ever feel stress, some who need to practice meditation to alleviate stress and people who are stress proned with high blood pressure and heart problems because of it.. and an infinity of colors in the spectrum. Why do people even bother to make generalized statements without statistics and studies attached? Theres a percentage of people in a million grades of burnout susceptability. If we want to talk about hiring people who fall in the category of not-susceptable and put those people on teams together as super-teams.. that is a good discussion, but to try and convince slashdot that since one woman doesnt get burnt out, or a collection of individuals, that means that no one does.. that just tells me that someone slept through sociology class in college, or didn't go at all.
but I like where I work because I can come up with my own projects and I have to be accountable for my own successes and failures. I don't have bureaucracy that takes up half my day or office in-fighting (as he suggests). But if I perform well, my year end bonus reflects that; but most importantly, I can see the fruits of my labor plastered over products. To me it's as satisfying as seeing my herb plants grow. When I do my job, I can answer the "who, what , when, where, why." I don't feel like just another piece of a cog in a bigger machinery (even though technically that's what I am), but I know my purpose and how it affects people. I have metrics to serve as feedback. In all, my job is not that different than playing Sim City or Call of Duty. The score is my user base and $$$ in return by the end of the quarter. Yes, it feels like a game. No, I don't use cheat codes (I'll leave those to the MBAs).
When I go home, I can turn it off and spend time with my family. But I consider myself lucky to be able to work at where I am, with the occasional 12-16 hours, but mainly 30 hrs/ week work load, and I can say that I enjoy it. And I'm sorry, but I agree with Horowitz after I've worked at many bad places and the lack of/ misproper management left an unmotivated staff even worse where everyone was just passing the buck and spending all their time doing stupid pranks (not even clever funny ones), or taking 2-3 hours lunches. Nothing ever got done.
Yeah, we have seen how well that worked out. Just look at the USSR, Cuba, etc.
Seriously, you are an idiot for thinking something that requires all people, especially those with power, to do the right thing all the time will ever work.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Imagine how many of the problems in big cities could be solved by having more people work 6 hours per day and arriving to the workplaces at different times of the day.
She should get a life.
Socialism won't work until people prefer working to earning a shitload of money.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why aren't we by long technologically advanced by now that humans dont need to work anymore, but just play? Wouldn't that be a nice goal for humanity?
And also, where the hell is the reply button to this article? I only seem to be able to reply to other people's comments here.
As much as I enjoy reading everyone's anecdotes, I remembered a Salon article (http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/) that cited data about why working long days (other than in short bursts) is counterproductive.
"t’s been this way for so long that most American workers don’t realize that for most of the 20th century, the broad consensus among American business leaders was that working people more than 40 hours a week was stupid, wasteful, dangerous and expensive — and the most telling sign of dangerously incompetent management to boot."
Which would you rather do -- work 70-hour weeks because some manager thinks you need to, or work 40-hour weeks because there's actually research that shows you'll be a more productive worker?
"I think 1:1s are absolutely vital, and in my ideal 1:1 with my serf I like to spout 336 words before getting to the point in a totally one-sided 'conversation' purely intended to intimidate and denigrate him even though it's not him who's actually done anything wrong."
BTW, this also applies to the free-market theory. You know, where that "invisible hand" is supposed to correct abuses and market distortions. Or where anyone is supposed to act as an "economically rational" person.
I know, the recurring answer against this type of argument is "if $POLICY is not working, it's just because we're not using enough of it". Where $POLICY may be any of the following: socialism, capitalism, globalization, violence, corporate welfare, waterboarding, treehugging...
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
yeah worker bees with time cards can't do more than a 12 hour productive shift 7-10 is optimum depending on complexity of work.
people with business responsibility (no that doesn't mean those with executive or manager in the the job title that HR dpt uses to recruit and retain you) know you do what it takes to get the job done and are goal not time focussed.
out
“Do you know the difference between a good place to work and a bad place to work?”
Well for one, in a bad place to work you're expected to be in the office for 12-16 hours a day.
Working 12-16 hours per day, 5-7 days a week, prevents the workers from having time available to find better jobs. Welcome to your new reality, USA. Freedom in slavery, etc, etc.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Are 12-16 Hour Workdays Productive?
No, they are not. Every single piece of evidence we have points towards it. Productivity goes down as fatigue goes up. Error rates go up as concentration drops over time. Two people each working 8 hours will be a lot more productive than one person working 16 hours. Burnout is real.
Heck, why is this even a question? What's next on "ask slashdot"? Something like "will the sun rise tomorrow?" ??
Long workdays are the result of greed or mismanagement, or both. If you think staying long all the time (in contrast to doing it every now and then when it's really necessary) benefits the company, you are kidding yourself.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
But each shift should never be more than six.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you're stupid enough to put up with employers that conduct that level of abuse then the fault is yours.
Socialism won't work until people prefer working to earning a shitload of money.
On the contrary, it seems the Scandinavian countries have shown that Socialist policies in a market setting allow the production of a "shitload of money", whilst still ensuring reasonably equitable distribution.
The ones past 8 are time and a half, right?
Apologies for being pedantic...but if fashion and marketing is nonsensical work, then I'd argue the same for game developers and peripheral devices - just get the $5 mice/keyboard combo from fry's bargain bin (get rid of Logitech entirely).
Regards,
The design dept.
"For the next iteration, we are targetting stability, bugs, new features, and UI improvements. But no refactoring or anything else that Management doesn't understand easily.
"Good morning, team. Arbeiten Macht Frei.
"During this sprint (or other fashionable project-management term), we're not explicitly asking you to work 20-hour days and weekends. However, those who demonstrate commitment, require less food, and never leave the building will be recognised as Star Talent; the others will be sacked ("laid off due to regrettable global economic conditions") as soon as Senior Management has hired consultants to pose as Caring HR Personnel to escort you away with nothing to show for your work here. To the latter underperformers, we say good luck in your future endeavours. And hiding in the toilets will not help. No, not even in the wheelchair-accessible stall.
"For those innocents who are competing for recognition as Star Talent, note that there are very few people who receive this designation, so if you are fool enough to believe in our praise, you must compete to survive against other talent using cunning, subterfuge, and in general the dirtiest tricks and strategies. Please also note that being identified as Star Talent during this project means nothing for your future. The truth is that only people without talent who suckle the body parts of Senior Management have any hope of moving away from the rotating knives.
"If you have a family that you love, you must make a choice. We encourage you make the right one. Senior Management wishes to make it clear that they believe in family values, but they mean their own families, not yours. It is acceptable to have pictures of your family on your desk, but please keep them to less than 5cm X 7.5cm and ensure that everyone in the pictures is smiling. We may, at our discretion, trim any pictures that exceed these dimensions. It is not acceptable to use pictures of your family as screensavers or as desktop backgrounds. Screensavers are not necessary with LCDs and, in any case, screensavers are proof that you are wasting time.
"Thank you for your dedication to the project, the organisation, the shareholders, and Senior Management's bonuses. Arbeiten Macht Frei.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
However, I have to be mentally engaged.
I'm an aspie, and I can go on "coding runs" that are ENORMOUSLY productive.
However, they also take a lot out of me. I can't do it on a regular.
Since my "day job" is as a manager, and I do precisely zero coding there, that means that my 12-16 hour coding runs tend to happen on weekends.
That means that I'm often getting some recovery during my "day job," which is a hell of a lot less demanding than my "joy job."
I regularly put in 9-10 hours a day at my "day job," and that proves to be sufficient. I am mostly there to make sure that my employees can do their jobs. Whenever I try to actually do work, I am rebuffed.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
-H. L. Mencken
For me, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, + commute is uber-suckage. It consumes nigh my entire existence. Compound that with the fact my wife works two 12 hour shifts every other weekend. It pretty much leaves us with little time. We have to try to take care of all the business side of things, medical bills, auto stuff, taxes, etc while dealing with work.
Furthermore, I've found in programming, that I am far more effective when I get into the flow. It might take me 1-2 hours to achieve flow. Then there's lunch, then trying to get back on flow. Then meeting, then trying to get back on flow. I often find that around 4pm I start becoming much more effective. And then it's shortly time to go home.
I really think programming would benefit from three days of 12-13 hours. This would allow us to get into the flow, continue the flow, and then basically have 4 days of laying fallow. Furthermore, two employees would easily cover an entire week of schedule. But I wager many developers would be a lot more effective if they could work three long days with less interruptions. And then have 4 days to take care of life, have a mini vacation any weekendt they want, be able to work on side projects, etc.
Sadly, companies refuse to consider such because they believe 5, eight hour shifts are the only way to go. Why? Is it for the work? Nope...it's for the control. Companies want you there EVERY day. Sat/Sun has been established as a mandatory break for most, so they want you there every other day.
I work 12 hour work days every week, but I also only work 3 days a week.
That conversation goes like this:
Employee: "I'd like to talk to you about this overtime we're all doing. A lot of us have to neglect our other obligations to do it, and we'd like to find a way of having a better work/life balance."
Boss: "You'll work the hours I tell you to, and you'll like it. Shut up and get back to work or you're fired."
Even if an agreement is reached during compensation negotiations on hiring the employee, there are no consequences for saying "I don't care what you were told. You're a salaried employee, we're not obligated to pay overtime. Now, get back to work, you lazy shit."
Yes, that's probably the time to get a new job. But, with the economy being in the toilet, jobs are pretty hard to come by, even for talented programmers. Since you don't want to go bankrupt (or lose your or your family's health insurance), you do what you're told.
I am fortunate in the fact that I do not have one of those bosses. My manager does not care when I come in or when I leave, as long as I take paid time off accurately when I hand in my time card. When we came under a ridiculous deadline recently from a Big Important Potential Client, I was given a budget and told to find a freelance developer to help out. When I had to get up at 0300 recently to fix an upgrade to Apache that had gone wrong, he gave me a gift card as compensation. But, I work for a not-for-profit company, and thus don't have investors or stockholders demanding that I be worked to death to make them money.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
so as to put more people to work. Why, w/ increased automation and efficiency is a similar reduction not on the table for the ``Great Recession''?
Back in the '70s there was a lot of discussion of reduced work hours --- somehow instead, wages as a share of the GDP peaked in 1972, and while profits are up, worker compensation is down.
Prime business lesson from the dot.com era --- business plans which depend on heroic efforts by your employees are _not_ sustainable.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
So you are saying everything not pure capitalism is communism???
The problem here is not capitalism or communism, but a bad management culture.
Having employees who are not tired will increase productivity. Reality is that long term productivity goes down with more working hours.
Good company's count productivity, not hours in the office.
I think the OP has been working too many hours. That summary was gibberish. Everyone seems to have reacted to the title and ignored the incoherence in the summary. So, my reaction to 'Are 12-16 hour days productive?' Yes, when they are necessary, but no more so than an eight hour day. Let's face it, we work to get things done and sometimes that takes more than the traditional eight hour work day. I don't condone excessive periods of 12-16 hour days, but I always find I am pulling them from time to time. Hey, if four 12 hour days a week work for you, go for it. To each his/her own. But don't expect everyone to want the same, all the time. Nor, should management expect that all the time. That's just poor management, period.
I don't think you know what socialism is.
If you own a business and opportunity is pounding at the door, by all means, take all you can get as quickly as you can get it - it may not last forever. If it's that golden you will soon be able to afford to hire people to do the work. Me, Inc. is not a business model, it's a hell job, with N bosses where N is the the number of customers you have. Happen upon your global niche and you can end up with the 168 hour work week with brief periods of sleep alternating with panic. Unless you're a soulless cash junkie you'll eventually reach some level where your personal time is worth more than any realistic amount of additional money.
Now if you are just an employee somewhere and workdays are consistently longer than you are comfortable with and/or vacation time is non-existent, stop putting in the extra time and start looking for a better job.
Having worked for years in an industry that is subject to a lot of overtime my conclusion is that far more often than not excessive overtime is not productive. When you're doing mindless, time-consuming work, sure it's not so much of a problem. Although, even then the frequency of mistakes seems to rise. But when you're doing anything that requires thought, overtime leads to significant problems. People who routinely work overtime inevitably end up more preoccupied with the fact that they're working late than on the task at hand, leading to sloppy work fraught with mistakes. It leads to a sense of helplessness, a feeling of never being able to catch up which in turn leads to high turnover rate.
Of course, there are always people who thrive in that kind of environment. I've worked with owners of smaller companies, guys like Horowitz who's entire lives are work. Their entire lives are preoccupied by work, and good for them because it's been one of the biggest contributors to their success. And from my observation that has been a very consistent theme in defining success. The ones I've come across who don't show that level of commitment have had a tendency to struggle or at least haven't been able to sustain their success. And the thing here is that a lot of these guys end up sacrificing personal lives and ruining relationships because of their obsession with work.
One of the more frustrating things with these guys is that they seem incapable of understanding that their own employees don't necessarily share the same drive. Why would they? They're not profiting directly from the success of the business like the owner or upper management might. Beyond hopes of pay increases or promotions, or threats of job loss, there's no incentive to work long hours. Secondly, some people simply don't care about work to the same extent these guys do. They have other priorities in their lives. So as long as they're productive workers, how long their workdays are is irrelevant.
Of course there's the other class of management which pretends they've got their work-life balance sorted out and end up doing neither well. "Katie" strikes me as one of those. I've come across too many managers who've managed to convince the company to work shortened workdays, or work from home once or twice a week. What that inevitably means is that they're unreachable, preoccupied with personal matters, unless they're a previously scheduled conference calls. Then on those calls it's evident they don't have a clue about what's going on but they make a big show of pretending they're on top of things. They're the sort of people who, when they do show up to work, spend entire days merely catching up. They're the sort of managers who make no crucial decisions, dump responsibilities on their subordinates but take all the credit for any success.
Sadly, these kind of people seem to comprise the bulk of corporate America. And I'm convinced that they're one of the main reasons why American companies are failing to innovate. These people don't want take risks, all they care about is keeping themselves employed. Corporate America is welfare for these people.
When you say free-market theory, I am assuming that you are referring to laissez-faire capitalism, which suffers from the same "everyone has to cooperate at all times" defect, as does "trickle-down economics". Everything in life needs limits and sometimes those limits need to be enforced by law.
The thing I hate in these arguments is "$policy1 isn't working so we should all change to $policy2." where $policy1 suffers from obvious defects and $policy2 is the exact and extreme opposite of $policy1 and suffers from the same or similar defects of $policy1.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
no
She's rich, smart and hot (in the marrying way) and undoubtedly way too busy for him. LAME!
Even 40 hours a week feels too long. I was the most comfortable with 30 (7.5hrs 4 days a week). I tolerate 40 enough, but I loathe overtime.
If any company asks me to work 12-16 hour days on any sort of regular basis, I'm putting in my two weeks right there. I work to live, not the other way around.
I've seen this attitude time and again from top execs. I think it has to do with the fact that they are top execs and look at it from that perspective.
I think the views of both Mr Horowitz and Ms Mayer are perfectly valid given their work history. Both of them have always and exclusively (execpt possibly for a short stint at SGA for Ben) worked at "jobs" in startup complanies where they had a personal stake in the success or failure of the venture. Their compensation was and is based on how well the company, their employees and they personally performed. When that is the case and longer hours means a better chance of success, then of course they will work as many hours as necessary. They will also not see it as a burden and will (mostly) love their job. And they will also think that anyone who doesn't see it that way as a "loser" or whatever, even if they don't use thosse words.
Sadly, most of us haven't had the same experience. For the rest of us, we are not compensated based on the success or failure of the company. We draw the same salary either way. Sure, every once in a while we might get a "bonus", but it really does not have a large impact on our lives and is not a great incentive to work crazy hours. Unlike these two, the upside potential for long hours is vanishingly small for most of us. That being the case, working long hours to tread water makes no sense.
In my own case, the company for which I work has posted record profits for the past eight quarters. How has that affected me? Not in the least. In that time my total compensation has increased by exactly $0.00. And yes, I did work many 12-14 hour days during that time, met or exceeded deadlines and expectations, "out performed" on my reviews, etc.
"I don't really believe in burnout. A lot of people work really hard for decades and decades, like Winston Churchill and Einstein," ... Marissa Mayer
Please tell me, Mayer is not in any sense, comparing herself to Winston Churchhill or Albert Einstien. Even so, work took great personal toll on both Einstein and Chruchhill.
I suppose the question for me is this, at the end of the day (or the end of a life), what do I want to look back at. If I spent even a single a night sleeping under a desk at google, I've wasted precious time.
I'm a professional schmoozer, in a position that requires me to periodically attend conferences and pull 12 or 14 hour shifts shooting the shit, eating and drinking, and generally keeping my game face on. It's actually quite painful, and after day two, you can start to feel your affect flatten out, and it takes a day or two recovery time after that to start feeling and expressing authentic emotion. Also, you get fat.
The personalities who can keep it up more than two-three days in a row are hollow people, who're useless for doing advanced work (at least in a small company) because they give folks the heebie-jeebies after about ten minutes of time. A valuable marketroid can chat it out for a couple days straight and then be real when they pick up the phone the week after.
Darn. Being european I misread the title as "working from noon to 4pm" and thought there was suddenly hope for me after all.
Perhaps this explains why Google is good at making money from search (their first idea), but everything has essentially fallen apart.
Great conceptually, but execution-wise, if search was not so profitable, they'd be in worse shape than Yahoo.
Where are those big successful ideas for Google?
Google+?
Picasa?
Google Office?
Android? Well okay.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Hey, those plebeian workers need to shut their pie holes and be happy that the job creators the Free Market Deities have put in place are providing them with the same pay for ever increasing work loads!
I mean, fuck, if all the companies are trending towards ridiculous work hours, it has must be in our best interest as sanctioned by the Market Gods.
Those ungrateful fucks that won't put in their time should be happy that they're not dying on the street!
I work to live, not live to work. I'm sure you can find some other person out there willing to put in double shift type work and not complain. I have better things to do with my health then beat it in to the ground working insane hours like that on a regular basis.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
...on a regular recurring schedule is not employment, it's slavery.
10 hours days, times only four days per week, is fair, and I'd actually prefer that, but my employer really wants 9 hours per day while paying for only 8.
If you're a programmer and you've got the bit in your teeth, then it makes sense to go as long as you feel energized. Thats the apples half of the comparison.
It's a totally different thing when a project cost estimate is borked and you're chained to your desk trying to meet some foolishly chosen deadline. It saps enthusiasm because the goal is to make it under the wire even if you have to push utter crap out the door. That's the oranges half of the comparison.
Trying to increase productivity by working twelve to sixteen hours *in order to attend more meetings* simply beggars belief.
People like being productive. As a first approximation, if it doesn't generate at least *some* enthusiasm, it's probably wasting employee time. Even a meeting can generate enthusiasm if people walk out of it feeling a new sense of purpose, or that obstacles frustrating their success have just been removed. The occasional midnight coding session or teleconference can be interesting and productive, but if you do that *regularly* people will hate it *because they know their time is being wasted*.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"For one employee, making nightly 1 a.m. phone calls to her team in Bangalore, India didn't bother her. What did was missing her children's soccer games and dance recitals because she was stuck at work. "So, we say you're never going to miss another soccer game or be late for a recital." "
Sure you are never going to miss another soccer game or recital, birthday, graduation but you will be trying to stay awake the whole time. Who does she think she is? Without looking her up on google, facebook, etc etc i am willing to bet she isnt married, doesnt have kids etc. Its clearly more important to her to do work instead of living her life. Life is short.
This whole discussion really rings true with me. I'm glad for a lot of what people are posting.
After 7 years of work at a pay scale that is far below what my job should pay, holding the expectation that I will inherit my family business, I am about to get the biggest shaft most could ever expect: I get nothing. Not a farthing. After helping grow his business, bring up his health, revenue, and standard of living at my expense, I was laughed at when I finally asked formally about details for taking over the business that my own father owns.
My girlfriend has been telling me for years to get an agreement in writing or to leave, she feels like she's dealing with someone in a physically abusive relationship, but I've had it pounded into me that "if I just work a little harder I can get there." It's all too evident now that I'm working for one of the maniacs outlined in an above post: A person who wants a 12 hour day every day, 7 days a week, and even that isn't good enough. Someone with huge spreadsheets, who justifies his own existence and is an abysmal manager, and the saddest part is that it's my dad, who apparently has no qualms with shafting the hell out of his own son for a gain.
Why do I say all this?
I've thought for years that I just needed a "better work ethic", to work much longer hours, to work harder. I've had it beaten into me that I am a total failure no matter what and that no one will take me as an employee. Someone above mentioned this is the new America, work them to the bone so they'll never leave? Well, drive their self esteem into the ground and they won't leave either, and make them think they should work 16 hour days so they feel guilty when they simply can't.
I'm looking for other opportunities where I can put a positive, energetic, and detailed work ethic to the grindstone and really have a career that I feel great about. I love what I do and am actually quite good at it to hear other people (boss notwithstanding) talk, but this thread nudged me to give what I needed: If you're stuck in a situation like this, if you're being ground into the dust and feel helpless, as though you SHOULD be working this much all the time then do yourself a favor and don't be like me, wasting precious years of your life in pursuit of the impossible task of getting the approval or respect of management who can't respect themselves or their work.
Thanks Slashdot : )
-
See, in the old days they actually *measured* productivity instead of just "defining a new reality" and creating "the right story" as my manager said recently.
And they found that the productivity for working 6 days and 5 days was basically the same. And the productivity for working an 8 hour day and a 12 hour day was basically the same.
And then more recently, about 20 years ago, they found that for most people (not those mutants who only need 3 hours a night sleep), that after two weeks of over 8 hours, the error rate rose and the severity of those errors rose and you had a productivity loss.
And it explains the insane and low quality decisions coming out of the executive and management classes these days. They are exhausted and working stupid. We are now told to write up projects "so your grandmother could understand them" because that's how exhausted and brain dead the executives are.
But they think they are doing fine when they really need to get more sleep.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Actually, for Cuba, it's worked out pretty well in a lot of ways: Their GDP is about 10 times what it was in 1970, including recovering from a slump in the early 1990s when they lost all aid from the Soviets. The Communist regime also improved literacy dramatically (from about 60% to 99% today), and has a health care system that's been used as a model for other Latin American countries. Your average Cuban isn't rich and doesn't have political freedom, but they are very likely to have housing, food, clothing, decent health, employment, education for their children, and are living to a ripe old age. They've even been regaining religious freedom since the Soviet collapse, and also are allowed a bit more economic freedom since Raul Castro took over from Fidel.
In short, for day-to-day living, you'd much rather be an average Cuban than an average Haitian.
I am officially gone from
I quit a job with a manager who didn't think that "work-life balance" was valid.
Even in the face of a terrible economy. Engineering requires a functioning brain.
Perhaps the world would be a better place if more people took time off.
8 or 12 hours is preference. Productive would probably be 20 hours a week for 4 hours a day.
But if I have to work 40+ hours a week I'd be better off working 12-16 hours straight than to sleep, eat, commute and waste a whole lot of time getting to work and getting in the zone.
I've done 12 and more hour workdays. But only on crash projects for a month or so. People will subconsciously pace themselves after a while. They slow down and ultimately produce the same as thjey would have in an 8 or even 6 hour day.
To put a stop to all the a*hole bosses who insist on long (and wasted) hours: I prefer to come in and work early. Starting at 4 or 5 AM, I can leave at a 'normal' hour. So I put in my time, get the work done and still go home with the rest of the world. One side effect of this is that I've got a few hours in the morning where the boss won't be pestering me or calling meetings.
Have gnu, will travel.
Once again, IDIOTS are writing these questions, and MORONS are accepting the submissions.
REPEAT AFTER ME. Workdays CANNOT BE PRODUCTIVE. The WORKER is productive.
Suggested headline change: Are employees productive with 12-16-hour workdays?
For me the 16+16+8 schedule would be perfect provided that I get used to the 16s and perhaps they aren't back to back.
When I was in university as an undergrad I had some days where it was 12+ hours or even 16+ hours. It was school, then work.Ultimately 40 hours of work a week feels like 40 hours a work of week, the benefit of the compressed schedule is you don't have to spend all your time commuting in traffic jams and worrying about whether you'll be late for work.
"Burnout is about resentment," she said. "It's about knowing what matters to you so much that if you don't get it that you're resentful."
This is true, but not everyone can have the things that matter to them. Mayer and Horowitz are in the lucky minority. If the things that matter to you also happen to be worth a lot of money to other people, and you happen to be very good at them, then you can devote yourself to them all day long and get paid well for it. If the the things that matter to you have little or no value for anyone else (e.g. spending time with your own children), then you're kind of screwed. The fact that we live in a world of scarcity means that the vast majority of people will have to do menial labor in order to obtain their basic needs. Most jobs are not inspiring or creative, but they need to get done -- and they will be done by people who would rather be doing something else. You can't tell me that Marissa Mayer would work 16 hour days for minimum wage as a cashier in the Google cafeteria.
I agree. I first realized that reading about Seymour Cray and elves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Cray#Personal_life
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Really, let's think for two seconds. We have productivity levels that have skyrocketed (some of which is caused by overtime, but most of it due to automation and increased efficiency), 10%+ unemployment, college students that can't find work, and you are asking if 16 hour work days are productive?
Yes, those work days are a great brainwashing technique, just ask the U.S. army, or any medical residency training program, or your local fraternity. It's pretty well known that those kinds of hours (combined with sleep deprivation) are great for keeping people so broke down that they can't think for themselves. However, in the face of 10%+ unemployment, what are you, crazy? How about we employ the entire work force before we worry about making some of us work 16 hours a day.
Somebody needs to start running these meetings according to Roberts Rules Of Order (and then SHOOT anyone breaking protocol).
i would add that the minutes of each meeting needs to be emailed to everybody involved that day.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
4 should be year round. 3 would be even better. can't tell you what it does for morale to work 3 off 4. unfortunately the wallet cannot handle it. fact is humans should spend MORE time with their own lives than at work to truly feel fulfilled, with the exception of those who truly love their work. our society's acceptance of spending most of our lives at work, even encouraging it and acting like those who do not do it are not normal, really really disturbs me.
Rule #3: when you make more than you need...HA! I'm just kidding - see rule #1.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Is not good for the gander in this case. Fine, CEOs can work as many hours as they want work, work, work.
But working that long isn't for everyone and they should recognize that. That is why they are CEOs.
Pay me what they get paid and I'll gladly put in a lot of hours too.
If you're not deep in debt, take the leap and set up your own shop. You should, if you've been training for it, know the business as well as you ever will. Unless your business is about personal relationships - in which case you'll need to set up in another town - use the clout and know how you have to open your own shop. You not only know the business, you know your father's weaknesses too - and that's your edge.
This is the danger of ever professional corporation in the world - that the people under you fall generally into two camps. The first are work-a-day employees - the bottom 80% - and they come and go. You try and keep the better ones, and let the losers go, but in the end they're just footnotes tot he organization. The second camp are the ones who really get it - those are the ones you have to watch. They are the ones you will either promote and make a partner, or who will leave and become your competition.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
... that eight hours work a day should be enough in normal circumstances to balance work/sleep/family/leisure/commute/health/...
That said, I worked for a short while as a consultant on a survey ship in connection with oil exploration. As you were confined to the ship for as long as you were on-board (obviously), they had made it twelve hour shifts, 8 to 8. That worked quite well as they had two weeks on-board and two weeks off. Two weeks at home with the family. So not only was the pay good, but the compensation for the family "deprivation" was sufficient to actually keep people interested.
I had an experience with really long working hours when another customer of mine had a problem: An employee had made a circuit board as an extension to their office computer and the company had a commitment to install this board before the end of the week, only it did not work! I worked for more than 40 hours straight to make the board work and presented the working board and updated software in the morning to a manager, who just said, "OK, drive out to the customer and install it." I politely declined, telling him that I was not driving anywhere in my condition. In the end the manager chauffeured me there and back, and the installation was a success.
There were times during the nights where I was doubting I would ever get through and it was not top productivity all the time, that is for sure -- but on the other hand, the company was generally extremely supportive and still on my top-five list of companies I have had as customers.
When I work 16 hours a day I'm not able to find time to get any housework done, and in general a lot of work on my personal todo list doesn't get done. There is such a thing as PERSONAL productivity, not just productivity for your employer. Of course, no one cares about the needs of workers. The needs of workers are invisible and completely left out of the definition of "productivity".
If Cubans have it so well, why are so many still risking their lives to leave Cuba by traveling in make-shift boats across 90 miles of treacherous ocean?
When was the last time you went to Cuba or talk to a Cuban or someone with relatives in Cuba?
It is interesting that you compare Cuba to Haiti. Why not compare Cuba to the Dominican Republic, Trinadad and Tobago, or Puerto Rico?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Just read the article. After all the inane management speak, the truth finally came out when Horowitz said, "you and Tim are preventing me from achieving my one and only goal." All the long-windedness was about nothing except his ego. For all the talk about what makes a great company, his outlook it totally narcissistic. Hilarious.
If the U.S. is so awesome and freedomy, why do 40,000 die a year for lack of health care while its government spends over a trillion a year on shit like drone wars and sending special forces to half the countries on the planet?
Since you seem to like Red Herring and all....
This 12-16 hour workday seems to be an oddly American thing. When I think back to my freshly-out-of-college days I recall that it was common place for employers to expect us newbies to work those kinds of hours. Naturally we were on a flat salary so there was no overtime. If you wanted to get promoted you had to ensure the long hours - up or out as the saying goes. Of course, no real thought was given to how productive an individual was. You just had to be there and put in the hours. Numerous studies have shown that actual productivity slips dramatically after about 10 hours, or less for some people. These days, I work 40 hours a week for my clients. But it is a productive 40 hours. If they want me to work more I can but it's going to cost them. No pay no play. I went to a straight hourly rate and I won't go back to working for any place that pays flat salary. I can virtually guarantee that you will be taken advantage of and asked to work overtime and not get paid for it. I think if more IT people were paid hourly you would see a lot less of the 12-16 hour work days. Aside from whether or not it is productive I simply don't want to work that many hours in a day. I like my job but it's not my life. Money is nice but there are more important things. I worked one time in Europe. 35 hour work week, nice lunch hour (or more) and low stress. Everything seemed to get done in those 35 hours. I think us Americans could learn a thing or two from our European friends.
Agreed. I mean, look at all those malnourished people in Norway and Finland.
Hey, we're talking about the US definition of socialism, get outta here with your reality!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The thing I hate in these arguments is "$policy1 isn't working so we should all change to $policy2." where $policy1 suffers from obvious defects and $policy2 is the exact and extreme opposite of $policy1 and suffers from the same or similar defects of $policy1.
To be fair, most of us are not saying we should become pure socialists. We believe the best way forward is a proper blend of systems, much like they practice in other areas of the developed world.
If Cubans have it so well, why are so many still risking their lives to leave Cuba by traveling in make-shift boats across 90 miles of treacherous ocean?
Totalitarian regimes have their problems. That doesn't say anything about the underlying economic model.
Sometimes I find that getting really tired actually makes me more productive. The creative juices are gone, and I can get through the drudgery.
I hear you can get amphetamines from your doctor to do that too.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
A single 16-hour day? Very productive.
A week or two of them with adrenaline going high? Maybe very productive.
Month-in-month-out or any time after the adrenaline stops? Less productive than going back to 40-hour work-weeks.
I used to work at a shop where we would have about 6 months of 40-hour work-weeks, about 5 months of 40-50 hour work-weeks, and about a month of living on adrenaline.
Correction:
1 month of just showing up for work exhausted from the last major project or using our vacation time if we had it, about 5 months of 40-hour work-weeks, about 5 months of 40-50 hour work-weeks, and about a month of living on adrenaline.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Controlling Carbon Pollution.
By working more you are spending less time at locations that use power, thus saving on emissions (also saving on emissions from travel).
Saving endangered animals
By working more you are not on vacations where you hunt endangered animals, therefore you are saving them.
Stopping War and Violence
If you are at work you are not participating in a war, and only violent towards office equipment which quite frankly deserves what it gets.
Helping give the next generation education and good values
What can be more valuable than the example of the dedicated worker?
Insuring everyone is being treated fairly and justly
By working you are allowing others to have your place in line somewhere, so balance is maintained.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Let me guess: Autism?
...twelve hour shifts and units are manned accordingly.
Performance deteriorates after ~11hrs and there is no reason to risk Very Expensive Weapons Systems digging a hole or exploding because of a maintenance mistake.
When I mention this to civilian medical folks their eyes get large, because their schedules don't take sleep deprivation/disruption into account.
Ten hour shifts IME aren't bad and make for a nice four-day week without burnout.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41059129
* Meet me there... where I can further tear your b.s. & you, in 1/2 some more!
(Don't show up there? You proved my point then, here!)
APK
P.S.=> I am going to take GREAT pleasure in trashing your "so-called points" as I did already, over there... show up, make your 'rebuttals', so I can destroy them too (and you with them, troll) ... apk
Hey. Australia and New Zealand have heaps of programming jobs available. AND a government that cares more about people. And better looking girls. Where the bloody hell are you?
It is not a red herring. Perhaps if you had a brain you would know that, Mr. Troll.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Granting a waiver under Subpart I, âoeManaging Fatigue,â of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, âoeFitness for Duty Programs,â involves a process that, once completed, allows individuals who are subject to the Subpart I work hour controls to not meet one of the work hour requirements. For a Subpart I work hour requirement to be waived, the following four conditions must be met:
(1) An operations shift manager, a security shift manager, or a site senior-level manager with requisite signature authority determines that a waiver is necessary, in accordance with the criteria in 10 CFR 26.207(a)(1)(i).
(2) A supervisor assesses an individual within 4 hours before exceeding the limit for which the waiver will be granted, in accordance with the criteria in 10 CFR 26.207(a)(1)(ii).
(3) The assessment must indicate that the individual being assessed is not fatigued, in accordance with 10 CFR 26.205(a)(1)(ii). (If the assessment indicates that the individual being assessed will likely become fatigued during the time covered by the waiver, then no waiver is granted, or controls and conditions are established under which the individual is allowed to work.)
(4) The individual performs all or part of the work scope that was identified by the shift manager, the security manager or the senior level manager, under the waiver.
Boss: "You'll work the hours I tell you to, and you'll like it. Shut up and get back to work or you're fired."
Employees: We have joined/(formed) a union. We will strike if you don't negotiate with us.
At least, that's how it works in Europe, and we're much better for it (IMO).
In the post, I did not say and did not mean to imply that I asked or expected anybody to work 12-16 hour days. For the record, I don't think that asking people to work 12-16 hour days a good idea -- quite the opposite. My point was that in a startup environment some people worked those hours on their own and I wanted to highlight how disrespectful and wrong it was to have that time be unproductive towards the company goals. Sorry for the confusion.
-Ben
Proof?
If Cubans have it so well, why are so many still risking their lives to leave Cuba by traveling in make-shift boats across 90 miles of treacherous ocean?
First and foremost, for the same reason many people are risking their lives running across the desert to get into the US from Mexico: Better economic opportunities in the US. Secondly (although considerably less so now than in the 1960's), because of political concerns.
When was the last time you went to Cuba or talk to a Cuban or someone with relatives in Cuba?
I haven't been there, but my mother and many of her friends have made several trips as part of a religious exchange program. I've spoken (with some translation help) with the leaders of the Cuban religious body during their return visits, mostly in the mid-1990's. And no, none of these visits were shadowed by police or other government officials.
Why not compare Cuba to the Dominican Republic, Trinadad and Tobago, or Puerto Rico?
GDP per capita - Cuba: $9,900 Dominican Republic: $9,000 Trinidad & Tobago: $20,000 Puerto Rico: $16,300 (notably, this is dropping, not growing)
Life expectancy at birth - Cuba: 77.9 Dominican Republic: 77.4 Trinidad & Tobago: 71.6 Puerto Rico: 79.0
Literacy - Cuba: 99.8% Dominican Republic: 87% Trinidad & Tobago: 98.6% Puerto Rico: 94.1%
Hospital beds per 1000 - Cuba: 5.9 Dominican Republic: 1.0 Trinidad & Tobago: 2.5 Puerto Rico: (not listed in the stats I'm reading)
Unemployment - Cuba: 1.6% Dominican Republic: 13.1% Trinidad & Tobago: 6.4% Puerto Rico: 14.2% Florida: 8.6%
So your average Cuban makes less than someone from T&T or PR, but enjoys a better life expectancy, much better education, very good health care, and much less unemployment. It's not a paradise (which I never claimed it was), but it does some things well. And if you're getting your impressions of what Cuba is like from people living in Miami, you're getting at best part of the story.
I am officially gone from
I think I've seen this before on some other similar article, but I think it's relevant:
Go the fuck home
I've seen this plenty at work. People don't leave until the boss or others leave, and so you don't leave, and they don't leave, and then all of a sudden everyone has been there WAY too late and did useless crap for awhile.
and here's how it shakes out:
(Will call my first day on shift Day 1, and so on. The actual day isn't a Monday.)
Day 1: Report for shift: Start in the early afternoon. Work til just after midnight. Work ass off. Stress. Deal with unhappy technically challenged people. 90% have screwed themselves, 10% are screwed due to faulty software, either from their vendors, other vendors, or employer's software.
Day 2: Rinse, lather repeat day 1.
Day 3: Rinse, lather repeat day 2
Day 4: Rinse, lather repeat day 3.
Day 5: Sleep until 9pm or so.
Day 6: Sleep until 9am, get woken up by friends wanting to play. Explain it's 5am for you right now. Go back to sleep until 4pm.
Day 7: Sleep until about 11am, wake up, shave, wash clothes, clean up a bit, get ready for work.
That said, I work with really smart, caring, wonderful people (well, there are one or two exceptions, but MUCH better than my last job). Management is engaged and really does seem to care that I'm happy and listens to me on the very rare occasions I have an issue. Work from home policy is liberal (though I personally do not like working from home). I used to be the smartest person in the room on technical stuff. That is no longer true.
I've been working this schedule for about 5 months now. I'm still not used to it.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
So, because "it does some things well", things are working out well for the people of Cuba? Meanwhile, Cubans repeatedly risk their lives to leave Cuba. Sounds like a paradise.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
4 day work week... how about 5 days of 6 hour shifts and make 30 hours the new standard work week.
You could also work this in pretty nicely with 3 days 8 hour shift and 1 6 hour shift... So you have one set of workers starting SMTW and second set doesThFSS(6 hour shifts on Sundays)
Would be a 25% increase in job positions, so maybe wait until unemployment gets a bit higher I suppose.
Many operators at petrochemical refineries are on the job for 12 hour shifts, 7 days on, 7 days off. It's not like they are being forced to cram in as much work as they can all shift long until they go stir crazy; at a refinery, that would be dangerous. Most of the time, they're on watch just keeping an eye on things, and doing little else more than watching TV, playing cards, surfing the net, etc. When I was doing that sort of work, although we were on the clock for twelve hours at a stretch, we usually split up into 3 hours "in", 3 hours "out" groups and took turns; i.e. half of us would be in the plant, working the controls and basically keeping an eye on things, while the rest would be in the lunch room watching TV, cat-napping, etc. But when a unit breaks down and shit hits the fan, everybody has to bust ass to get it working again, because every day offline is millions of dollars of lost profits. The best part is 7 days off in a row afterwards; who wouldn't want a job where you pull in a six figure income and you're off 26 weeks out of the year.
I wrote some thoughts on this article, here: http://agileanarchy.tumblr.com/post/29861838560/the-bully-ceo
Right ?
The more you're t work, the less time you have to get to know who your neighbors are. The less time you have to read a book (who reads books anymore, right ?) The less time you have to think about your life, your past, the less time to ponder, to create anything. The less time to be more than the niche, the over-specialized corporate robot your money-masters want you to be.
Yeah, what a great idea, to be ruled by shallow, narrowly over-specialized automatons, masquerading as complete human beings.
Just another reason to hate American corporate culture and everything it represents.
Yeah, I hate you because you are "successful".
Successful at putting a price tag on everything and reducing all of humanity to little automatons.
It worked in Scandinavian countries because of culture and mentality, many southern european countries tried to emulate that and ended up with public workers that don't want to work even 7 hours a day, and are almost impossible to fire due to special legislation, even when responsible for gross incompetence.
(You know something... ) I lived it. I even solved problems in dreams, just woke up to take notes (in the computer), and went back to sleep. I need several continuous sessions to get the brain hot enough to keep programming. You can ask any real programmer: if you let the code go cold, it is harder, but while you are at it, things come easy. Other disciplines are alike, most likely, mathematics, laboratory work, research, literary analysis, writing... That is why you have to have vocation, or it becomes hard for lack of fun. I miss the eighteen hours non-stop programming sessions, you only have time to restroom and coffee, then sleep, but I would take my two hours lunch like sacrosant. Danilo J Bonsignore
I got fired once for not sufficiently stifling a laugh when the VP (who, the week before had fired the project manager and taken over) said, "We've been meeting for 8 hours a day, WHY ISN'T [the programming] DONE YET?!"
If you are the boss, and say, you are from Australia, and want to visit your family... You can schedule a "critical business meeting" with a "potential client" in Australia. You can have the business meeting in Australia, count the travel time as "work time" [38 hours in the round trip], and visit your family. May be make a few calls to the office to get status updates.
You get a free trip [first class even] to your vacation destination, refreshed state of mind, and still get to claim a 120 hour work week.
Now, the worker drone wants to go to Australia... He can't afford the two day trip [anything less than a few weeks won't make it worth the money spent]. He saves all his vacation time, and promises to be reachable when he is in Australia. And, none of the time counts towards anything.
Why exactly did MM need to put 130+ hours a week in the office? The only reasonable case where people have put in 110+ hours a week over an extended period are Cisco's founders -- both the wife and husband, no kids, worked from home, and that was what they liked.
Her lack of humility (and lack of humanity) is surprising, especially considering the "do no evil" motto.
Depends on the timing of the schedule. At one place my normal day was 13 hours long, with the occasional longer day (some 23-24 hour days thrown in only to go home, get 1 hours sleep and back to work), and unpaid week end work. My bosses often criticised me for not being productive enough etc. Yet they'd still expect me to meet their unrealistic deadlines under threat of being fired if I didn't. (Like asking at 5PM for me to set up a network consisting of a server and four computers for a demonstration meeting at 9am the next morning). I never could work out whether they were doing it deliberately or were just very stupid. I was pretty burned out by the experience and ended up moving departments. (To a department that thought I was a real catch as they used to see how hard I worked, as opposed to my bosses who thought I never did anything). They ended up replacing me with four other people. But point is, my health suffered, I had little to no social life, so most of my friends moved on, I was always stressed and sick and eventually was even vomiting blood. But, that's because it was pretty much unrelenting. I know other people who do 4 days x 12 hours on, then 4 days off. They didn't suffer any ill effects because they were at least getting a break between the 4 days there were on (and left as soon as their shifts were over).
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
That's assuming, of course, that you're able to organize into a union without using any employer resources or their knowledge. If they find out you're thinking about unionizing, prepare to be forcibly ejected from your former place of employment. Yes, it's illegal to terminate someone for trying to organize. Does it happen anyway? You bet your ass. Getting sued and settling (or, more likely, bankrupting your former employee with legal fees) is preferable to a unionized workforce for most employers.
In that case I'd suggest the employee joins an already-existing large union, which will have a decent legal team.
Unions here have gone on strike because one of their member's was sacked unfairly (I remember them announcing a short while later that they definitely weren't going on strike when an employee -- a train driver -- had broken a critical safety rule and was sacked).
(Views based 100% on how things work in the UK.)
Feel free to piss off and live in Cuba. I'd much rather be poor and free any day - than have my "necessities" fulfilled by the state (or anybody else, for that matter) just to be told to shut up and stop thinking by myself. Thanks, but no thanks. I've already tried that. If the price for freedom is a hard and impoverished life - I'll have that any day.
In that case, the employer is not bound by contract with the union. They are still free to do whatever they wish, unless they sign a collective bargaining agreement, and there's no reason to if it's just one employee. And you can bet the farm that that employee will be escorted to the door immediately and their belongings sent to them in the mail. The company can still function without that employee; it's not the same as all the employees going on strike.
There are legal protections from retaliation for attempting to organize one's fellow employees into a union, true. See my comment above; the employer will do it anyway and see the resulting lawsuit/settlement/fine as a cost of doing business.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Working for a Japanese company, they would talk about how much time they spent a work. While, they did spend a great deal of time at work, the team from Japan also played and drank alot. It's a combination of social time with work time.
Drinking was as much part of the the work time as anything else.
the talk to his employee by the guy in the first link was disgusting. Someone is going to kick his condescending butt someday. "Do you know why I come to work?" to which the employee shoudl have responded, "Because you are an egotistical Dick who gets lots of ego gratification by talking to others like you know everything and they dont?"
Obviously he needs to quit his micromanagement. Hire people, set metrics, they either perform or they dont. No "Do you know why I come to work" lectures to make them employees want to throw up. Why did he hire these people?
"Socialism" is a sound bite that was dusted off at a three day meeting of Republican spin doctors six months before the last election. I remember reading the article, a bunch of big wigs in the republican party met for three days to decide how to attack Obama, and this was the sound bite result. Knowing this, I find it disgusting when people talk about Obama being a socialist and want to have me then treat them like they are are thinking when they say this. I find repeating national level sound bites to be proof that we are apes, and a reflection on the one who is attempting to be treated as if they are making a real point by saying it.
I love 12 hour workdays. It gives you an extra long weekend every week, and you can get a rediculous amount done.