Slashdot Mirror
The American Workday, By Profession
An anonymous reader writes NPR has created an interesting visualization of workday data from the American Time Survey. It shows what the typical working times are for each profession. You can see some interesting trends, like which professions distribute their work throughout the day (firefighters and police), which professions take their lunch breaks the most seriously (construction), and which professions reverse the typical trends (food service). "Still, Americans work more night and weekend hours than people in other advanced economies, according to Dan Hamermesh and Elena Stancanelli's forthcoming paper (PDF). They found that about 27 percent of Americans have worked between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. at least once a week, compared with 19 percent in the U.K. and 13 percent in Germany."
Still, Americans work more night and weekend hours than people in other advanced economies,
I believe the correct definition of an advanced economy is one which enables, empowers, and encourages a worker to be fully engaged and continuously productive at all hours of every day of the week, maximizing shareholder value and business agility while minimizing costs.
Question for the reader: Am I joking, trolling, or serious?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Step 1: be a salaried employee.
Step 2: produce good results
Your hours will still matter, of course, but not as much.
The summary makes it sound like a bad thing. To me, it indicates an economy that doesn't roll up the sidewalks at 5pm. It takes a lot of service jobs to keep businesses open 24 hours. It's great that I can go out and buy a Big Mac and a lawnmower at 3am.
Your Step 1 is off, you would have to be salaried exempt, in a salaried non-exempt position they can still dock you for lunch.
Step 2 is irrelevant, I have found that it does not matter how hard you work, how much you get done, or how good your results are. The company will always say that there is an unpaid lunch, even when you are salaried exempt. It is just that most people are unaware that in such a position you can ignore them as they can not divide out the half hour or hour for lunch.
I knew I was oversimplifying. You're absolutely right.
So how in the world did a diverse field like IT get lumped together with Mathematics of all professions? And does it seem to me that calling the IT industry "Computers" is a backslide to the early 80's?
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
There are a lot of support roles out there that are not salaried and the hours only matter so much as making sure business runs smooth.
BTW at no point will I be on a salary since everyone I know that has done so got screwed.
I read TFA and now I have an inexplicable hankering for Arbys
Does true communism scale to anything bigger than a hippie commune?
Yeah, everyone knows the big money is doing hourly work! That's why executives are paid by the hour!
The hookers come out at night to screw their clients, the stock market guys get up early to screw all of us.
Everything in the middle depends on who your clients are, and type of industry you're in.
Educated people see daylight (or get paid a premium), less educated get shift work.
I don't even need to read TFA to know these things. ;-)
And, yes, I'm mostly kidding.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The employer cannot deduct a lunch break if the employee did not take one. If the employer mandates that lunch breaks be taken, or will not necessarily approve of all hours worked if no lunch break is taken, then this sort of thing must explicitly be described in the employment contract that the employee signs when they first start working for that employer. In some jurisdictions, it is required by law that employers offer breaks to employees who work more than a certain number of otherwise consecutive hours, but I know of no legislation anywhere that an employee might be required by law take them if they do not want to.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Look at the graph in TFA. Only 35% are still working by 5pm. By contrast, 45% are working by 7:30am. So...why isn't the "standard workday" the 45%-to-45% mark of 7:30-4:30?
You want in on 28 days of paid holiday, paid sick leave, paid maternity and paternity leave and 35-hour weeks? As a culture you might try to get over your fear of the word 'socialism' :)
I really would like to know this, in Brazil we don't get paid for lunch breaks and we are mandated by law to have one hour lunch break minimum. As in, the company can fire your ass if you don't take your one hour lunch break and you can sue your company if they deny it to you. Do Americans really work 9 to 5 and still get a lunch break while clocked in?
It's not our whole culture that hates civilization, just the Republicans, who have slid so far to the right that they can only get the votes of completely delusional right-wing radicals who get their "news" from hate radio, wingnut blogs, and Fox. It's a self-correcting problem nationally, as they become a regional party that can't win outside the confederate states, but they'll keep the backward states from improving for years to come.
I've heard of actual 9to5 including lunch, but only on the east coast and even there, it's not common.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
So what you're saying is the problem with communism is human nature?
I worked for a public utility at a water treatment plant. The plant operated day and night, every day. The shifts changed every month and there was a especially bad shift when I worked three PMs and two nights, the next shift was the same 3/2 with different days off. .The most difficult time in my life. I would tell my sons to be patient with me when I was being rude or not rational. Any shift workers out there?
Many of the people I know who have taken salary positions {not CEO of VP type positions more like senior tech and middle management} get a lot of extra work offloaded onto them, they can't delegate it down to an hourly employee because of overtime, they are afraid to push back or just plain can't, and end up working 50-60 hours a week and making less than they would have as an hourly worker before that big promotion.
In the vast majority of places I have worked, they have claimed that I am an exempt employee and thus cannot be paid overtime, although that is not true by the letter of the law in most cases. Also, in most of those places, they do allow you an hour for lunch and you are not actually "on the clock", however, they also expect you to work 8:30 to 5:30, not 9 to 5. So you still work at least a full 8 hours.
Recently I was told by my boss that I need to bring my laptop to lunch in case there is a problem at work. That means, as far as I can tell, that I am not actually on a lunch break at all. Also, it means that I am limited to eating places that have free public wifi, because they won't pay for tethering and I'm sure not going to pay for it just for their use, and also that wherever I go has electric outlets within reach of the table because the battery on my 4 year old laptop only lasts about 10-15 minutes.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Lots of construction work is only safe to do when the crew is working together. You can't have people single-lifting things that require team lifting. You can't have a truck, pallet jack, front loader, paver, or crane operator running heavy equipment in confined areas without spotters and such. A roofer needs nails and shingles brought up to be efficient. Getting to lunch at the same time is good safety and good business. It's not just a union thing.
Wrong actually. In CA they're mandatory. Prevents employers from threatening the employee and then later saying they "voluntarily skipped lunch" leading to he-said/she-said.
I was salaried for a short while, it meant them always trying to get 50-60 hours out of me for 40 hours worth of pay. I made sure that my next job stated in the contract that I get paid for every hour that I work, the upside is that unless overtime is necessary going over 40 hours a week is discouraged as a result.
but I know of no legislation anywhere that an employee might be required by law take them if they do not want to.
I believe it varies by state, but here in Minnesota your employer is required to provide at least a 30 minute unpaid lunch break and 15 minute paid breaks for every 4 hours worked, but I can't imagine the state would make a law that says that you must take that break.
Requiring that the employee takes a lunch break is simply avoiding possible legal repercussions if an employee were to claim that the business worked them so hard that they were unable to take a break (which would mean that the business was breaking the above law). Putting it on the companies rule books that the employee must take a break is then just to avoid those claims. Also they probably don't want the employees eating at their desks on the clock, which probably isn't nearly as productive as clocking out and working the same amount of time later.
In Colorado, retail and service, plus a whole host of other types of business, MUST provide an unpaid lunch. And yes, you as a worker DO have to take it - you could literally turn around later that day and sue the company for not providing one, even if I have your sworn oath on video saying you agree. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency... Note that this kind of thing only applies to "employees" - contractors are totally different.
. Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
Ah yes, it's all {the other group}, not {my group}. I'm afraid this isn't quite true. American culture as a whole is suspicious of socialism. The Republicans are actively trying maintain this position as they can use it to gain votes. Don't delude yourselves that Democrats are anything other than right wing capitalists just because they are left of the Republicans socially. The issue isn't just a broken political system and corruption but also your Overton window.
Employers are certainly free to require that employees take a lunch break to prevent the "he said-she said" scenario, but employees are not actually directly required to take such breaks by law. You may want to reread the California statutes again.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"The employer is required to provide" is not actually the same thing as "the employee is required to take". An employer cannot deduct time for a lunch break that was not taken. The employer can, however, discipline an employee for failing to take a lunch break when they were supposed to, and can refuse to honor the time worked during the expected lunch break if this is stipulated in the employment contract. In absence of any such contract, the employee is still required to be paid for all time worked.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You're an ignorant pig. France's 10yr treasury bonds yield less than USA's, hence markets consider it MORE solvent. Sweden doesn't export oil (that's Norway, idiot) and its government expenditure is still higher than 50% of the GDP. Go back watching cartoons at the local Tea Parties' office.
The Colorado laws regarding meal breaks govern the activities of the employer, not the employee. The employer is entirely free to discipline an employee who has worked more time than was authorized under the company's normal disciplinary policies, but the employee must still be paid for all time that they worked.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Canadian here. I work 8:30 to 5:00 with an hour lunch. I'm on salary, and I while I am technically on call 24/7, I am quite sure to rarely ever work more than the 37.5 hours a week I'm paid for. I get 4 weeks paid holiday a year, and free health insurance. I have prescription, optical, and dental coverage through our group plan at work. Life here is pretty good. What I see on the news from the U.S. makes me shake my head some times. You guys just don't seem to get it.
planet texture maps and more
Counting is logical and straight forward, the English language, spelling in particular, is anything but...
--- Keep the choice with the user..
How many other nouns form plurals by adding a d?
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Can anybody guess the secret identity of typo-man?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Maybe the companies you've worked for sucked. I always book 40 hour weeks, because I can't be bothered to keep exact record of when I arrived at work, when I left for lunch, when I returned from lunch, and when I went home. Most of the time during normal operation I work less, closer to 7h than 8h days. But when necessity demands it, I've worked 12h days for weeks, and still only booked 40h at the end of the week. The important thing to me is getting the job done, and I consider the money I receive by booking 40h the cost to have me do that, whether it actually takes more or less time is irrelevant.
On average, I think I work less than the 40h weeks I always book. But I do my job well, I have a reputation, and nobody questions me.
I think it's more honest. I want to be payed for the quality of my work and not for the time I hang around in an office. It would be easy to hang around until the hours sum up, but I would be wasting my time and fooling my employer into thinking I'm actually doing something during that time. Sometimes I've completed the task for the day in 6 hours of concentrated work, and I'm not in the mood or mind to start something new. I pack my things and leave.
Nobody has ever raised an issue with my work hours so far, probably because I'm very good at what I do. And if somebody ever did, I'd probably get a new job. I don't want to compromise on how I do my job, and if I go, it's mostly their loss, not mine.
US bonds are already returning below inflation, a fact that should tell you something about the health of the 'market' in bonds.
How broken is the French bond market to return even less? In the USA at least I understand the scam (the Federal Reserve will never allow a bond auction to reflect actual borrowing costs, much less go off undersubscribed), Is the European Central Bank buying all of Europes excess government bonds (I thought they were only buying the Greek, Italian and Spanish ones)?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
37.5 hours of actual 'work'? I laugh at your claim.
Do you count vegging out in meetings as work? Daily scrum? etc etc
I'll believe there is an actual STEM grad shortage when the pinheads stop wasting so fucking much time on non-work. Start by putting all the net negative producers on the street.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As Germany was mentioned lets look at that (I'm German and currently living in Canada). The law _requires_ that you have at least 11 hours between going home yesterday and going back to work today. So if you pull an all nighter you are *not allowed* to show up for work at 9 the following day.
Also if you work more than 6 hours a day you *must by law* take a 30 minute break and your employer will automatically deduct 30 minutes from your clocked in hours that day. The employer is not allowed to let you work longer than 6 hours without a break. (see Arbeitszeitgesetz on dejure.org paragraph 4, last sentence). Youll be hard pressed to find an employer that enforces that though ;) Except for truckers that have special rules on how long they are allowed to drive and the police does check and enforce that.
According to paragraph 3 you are allowed a maximum of 10 hours work per day and even that is only allowed if you do not work more than 8 hours on average (calculated over 6months).
The law does allow some limited modifications of these numbers, especially in hospitals, for shift workers, night workers or bakeries.
Your Step 1 is off, you would have to be salaried exempt, in a salaried non-exempt position they can still dock you for lunch.
Step 2 is irrelevant, I have found that it does not matter how hard you work, how much you get done, or how good your results are. The company will always say that there is an unpaid lunch, even when you are salaried exempt. It is just that most people are unaware that in such a position you can ignore them as they can not divide out the half hour or hour for lunch.
Australia got around this by making it legal not to pay for lunch breaks but dropping the work day from 8 hours to 7.5.
In the end it's a win-win scenario. If you take 1/2 an hour for lunch, you work the same hours and get the same pay, if you want to take a longer lunch, you just work a bit later to make up your 7.5.
And we did all this without dropping wages (yep, but unions are evil, right, guys.... right).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
circadian rhythm. we are not nocturnal. your pattern has negative health consequences for many people.
Actually Step 2 should be work for a company which doesn't treat it's employees as enemies. The problem is that's not so easy.
not true, I have relatives that did the commune thing for years, and had a good time. then they got bored and tried other stuff.
Employers are, however, allowed to fire a person for any reason (other than obviously the usual set of racist, sexist, etc. reason), or for no reason at all. This includes the reason of "we require you to take an hour lunch break and you haven't been doing that". So whether or not you're required to by law is irrelevant, just whether or not the company *claims* that you're required to by law and are going to enforce that possibly-incorrect interpretation.
That's entirely true... my point is that there is no actual legislation that requires the employee to take a break... and that the employee must still be paid for all time worked unless there was an explicit agreement to the contrary in the employment contract which would have been signed by the employee when they started working for that employer. Even then, certain rights to being fully paid for time worked cannot be legally forfeited, regardless of what kinds of agreements were made.
But certainly, yes... an employer is at liberty to discipline an employee who works unauthorized hours, in whatever fashion is commensurate with that company's disciplinary policies. Even if the hours were not authorized, barring any employment contract which explicitly indicates otherwise, as I mentioned above, the employee is still legally required to be paid for the time they worked, and cannot legally deduct time for a lunch break from the employee's pay if it was not actually taken.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Step 1: be a salaried employee.
Step 2: produce good results
Your hours will still matter, of course, but not as much.
Step 2 is obviously bullplop, since it's blindingly obvious that advancement in most american craporations is based on ass-licking rather than competence and productivity.
The sweatshop culture of america is a direct result of this.
Depends on the company and the job. A lunch break is mandatory under certain circumstances (which should not be construed as meaning everybody gets one, of course), but it doesn't legally have to be paid.
My pay does not depend on my exact hours, so if I come in at 9, take an hour lunch, and leave at 5, the worst that will happen is that the boss will tell me to work more. (Of course, I don't get overtime when crunch time hits and I need to get something done before going home, but that's rare.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Quit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'