South Korea Cuts Its Work Limit From 68 Hours a Week To 52 (cnn.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

South Korea Cuts Its Work Limit From 68 Hours a Week To 52 (cnn.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Tuesday July 3, 2018 @08:35AM from the adjustment-bureau dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: South Korea has lowered its maximum working hours from 68 hours a week to 52 hours. The legislation, which went into effect Sunday, received overwhelming support in the National Assembly in an effort to limit the time employees spend on the job. South Korea has the third highest number of hours worked of 37 countries tracked by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, with the average person in South Korea working about 2,024 hours in 2017, or approximately 38.9 hours a week.

103 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Great idea by cmdr_klarg · 2018-07-03 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now let's do that here in the US. No exceptions. If the job requires more than 50 hours to accomplish then you need more people doing it. If you can't afford to have more people doing the job then you shouldn't be in business.

--
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
1. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 08:49 · Score: -1
  
  WRONG. Life itself is a temporary privilege and if you don't want to work, well, it's simply going to result in a revocation of privileges, to be redistributed to fucking worms that are more deserving than your worthless ass ever were.
2. Re:Great idea by snapsnap · 2018-07-03 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't work in software since there's such a lack of programmers compared to demand and programming has such a huge communication overhead that it's more efficient to work more hours than add more people.
3. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Hello, Cockles ;)
4. Re:Great idea by alvinrod · 2018-07-03 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  What if I'm an Uber driver or otherwise self-employed? Am I not free to make decisions about my work schedule for myself? What if I'm a painter, writer, or engaged in some other form of creative activity? Must I stop doing what others might consider a leisure activity if I derive income from it? Also, what stops someone else from deciding at some point in the future that anything more than 30 hours per week is sinful and what if I can't afford to maintain my lifestyle based on those limitations?
5. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Right. No exceptions. If you're a firefighter, and you hit your 50 hour mark and the forest fire that has every person in the area working on it is still burning, walk away and let it burn.
6. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 09:01 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  Huh...I didn't realize Joe Stalin posted on /.
7. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 09:02 · Score: -1
  
  That's his cousin, Republican INCEL Ivan. He's a big Trump packer, I mean fudge packer, I mean traitor backer, I mean... yeah.
8. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  lack of programmers compared to demand
  cite
  
  it's more efficient to work more hours than add more people
  you've really been drinking that Kool-Aid haven't you
9. Re:Great idea by PopeRatzo · 2018-07-03 09:11 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Huh...I didn't realize Joe Stalin posted on /.
  I know they look alike, but that's actually Ayn Rand. It's a common mistake.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re:Great idea by _Sharp'r_ · 2018-07-03 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  It's for "businesses with more than 300 employees, state-run agencies and government offices".
  From the same article:
  
  Prior to the new law, South Koreans worked some 300 more hours yearly compared to workers in countries such as the US or Italy, and some 700 more hours yearly to those in countries such as Germany and Norway.
  Studies have shown that the country's long working hours do not necessarily result in higher labour productivity. In 2014, South Koreans' labour productivity was US$31.90 per hour, significantly lower than the OECD average, which was US$49.
  Of course, then there's the other side of the coin:
  
  Not every South Korean is pleased with the change. A survey by a local employment portal site showed that 55.2 per cent of the 905 South Korean workers who responded saying that they are concerned about having to work overtime anyway after the law revision - meaning more than 12 hours weekly - but won't be eligible to receive overtime pay.
  Before the change, South Koreans worked 52 normal hours and 16 hours of overtime, and were entitled to overtime pay for at least 16 hours a week.
  "What if you prefer money or work over life?" said a 33-year-old office worker living in Seongnam. "I think those who want to work more and thereby make more money should have the right to do so. What if you can't make your ends meet unless you work overtime? I feel like for some people in this country, this law revision is rather irresponsible."
  
  --
  The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
11. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  "What if I'm an Uber driver or otherwise self-employed? Am I not free to make decisions about my work schedule for myself?"
  Only to some extent. If you try working 120 hours a week, you'll be so tired you'll cause a wreck and kill umpteen people. Not a good scenario. Some jobs have hours limits for a reason - same reason truck drivers can only drive so many hours before they have to take a mandatory break of a certain number of hours. Common sense, but no, you cannot just work however many hours you want.
  Besides, after a certain point, you are so tired (even if it's something you like) that you are not as effective, and you do better stopping and resting.
12. Re:Great idea by dgatwood · 2018-07-03 09:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Wouldn't work in software since there's such a lack of programmers compared to demand and programming has such a huge communication overhead that it's more efficient to work more hours than add more people.
  Actually, all the research I've seen in this area says the opposite — that you can work maybe one 60-hour week before you start to lose productivity, and over the long term, you're no better off working 60 hours than 30 hours. Your productivity actually goes negative at around 45 hours, IIRC, and diminishing returns begin at 25 or 30 hours. I forget the exact numbers, but that's in the right ballpark. So you're almost always better off adding more people than working more hours, unless the need is very short-term.
  The only companies that do well by forcing people to work crazy hours are game developers, and that's because they know they can burn out one group of devs and move on to the next set of suckers. For everybody else, it is generally self-defeating.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
13. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  It is almost never more efficient to work more hours. Many studies have shown productivity drops significantly after 6 hours, even more after 8 hours and way more after 12 hours. While you may not realize the quality of your work suffers after even a single day of this let alone weeks on end. It is always more efficient to hire a second person but the reality is finding a qualified second person can be a challenge in and of itself.
14. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  What the fuck is an "incel" and why do I imagine it's something lazy people say to justify their workshyness?
15. Re:Great idea by bsolar · 2018-07-03 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  I guess the “no exception” was meant in the sense “no category of worker should be exhempt from the 50/w limit”.
  This doesn’t mean you cannot have exeptions to the 50/w limit in some weeks even if your category must comply with it: usually regulations take into account and allowfor emergencies, require proper compensation and might impose fines if overtime work is found to be structural and not exceptional as it should be.
16. Re:Great idea by greenwow · 2018-07-03 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  I respectfully disagree. I work with a lot of guys working "Seattle Hundreds" that are productive. I used to be able to work those hours, but at my age I really start getting confused and my short-term memory shot after about sixty hours a week, but I'm almost twice as old as my coworkers. Communication and understanding the problem and the code is such a tremendous overhead that it's more efficient to have developers regularly work 80+ hour weeks.
17. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Funniest thing I've read all day, seriously. Thanks for the laugh, brother. 3 -PCP
18. Re:Great idea by Gavagai80 · 2018-07-03 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  The only companies that do well by forcing people to work crazy hours are game developers
  The biggest problem is the many, many companies (though maybe not many software companies) that make people work more hours without paying them -- by classifying most of their employees as "management" with salaried positions, no matter how obviously they're not actually managers. There are millions of people forced to work 70 hour weeks for the same pay they'd get for a 40 hour week.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
19. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  Probably because you're intellectually lazy and not aware of it.
20. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Get back to work you bum - you can take the day off when you're dead.
21. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  No time. Too busy coding.
  Programming is one of those things where doubling people does not double output. You may get 50% more output by adding a second competent person. If they cannot hit the ground running you just bought yourself -25%. Because of this, when you reduce a programming team's size, efficiency tends to go up.
22. Re:Great idea by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2018-07-03 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not all processes can be sped up by adding more people. Nine women can't make a baby in one month. Some coding projects slow down significantly if you add more people.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
23. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Diminishing returns! Hahaha! Thay is the mantra of the lazy coder. I have been doing this for 25 years. More hours equals more done. Get everyone out of your office, cancel meetings, turn off your phone, stop visiting slashdot, turn up the music... you too can accomplish greatness.
  Speaking of which... I need to work an all nighter. Cya!
24. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Hearing about people working 70 hours often just blows my mind. I must be a truly lazy person because I only work 40 hours a week with a few weeks where I'll work an extra day for 48 hours, but otherwise, that's it. I only make 50k but have a pension, 401k, good medical that cost my wife and I $15 a week (not shitty plan either) and dental along with 4 weeks paid vacation.
  I would expect that if someone is regularly working 60+ a week, you damn well better be making more then 100k and be able to at least buy a condo but really a house along with a new car and at least one real vacation a year. Anything less and I just do not understand why people put up with it.
  Maybe everyone that does that kind of work really enjoys the work and finds it more rewarding then their spouse and hobbies. I just can't see working so many hours.
25. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  Programming is one of those things where doubling people does not double output.
  9 women cannot make a baby in 1 month.
26. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Trotting out "facts" that have been proven wrong by countless studies + no citations from you = load of bullshit you're trying to sell
  All the best, mate.
27. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  The only companies that do well by forcing people to work crazy hours are game developers, and that's because they know they can burn out one group of devs and move on to the next set of suckers. For everybody else, it is generally self-defeating.
  Those aren't NEARLY the only companies. Junior invetsment bankers routinely work 90 hour weeks for 2-3 years on end. i understand that it's no better in law, and Doctors have it EVEN WORSE.
  Just think about that: you go to a hospital for a car accident at night, and you're getting a doctor who's been on shift for 24 straight hours.
28. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  Seattle hundreds and the like are based on the delusion that one woman can make a baby in one month.
29. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  They manage their arms, legs, and fingers. Get back to work, you lazy slobs!
30. Re:Great idea by thePsychologist · 2018-07-03 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  You don't even need research to see this.
  In a two-year span as a student I once graphed every page I read each week. This was in a technical subject where I went through each line and verified that it was true, so it wasn't casual reading.
  The graph I got at the end was fascinating: it was like a sinusoidal graph with a period of about 2-3 weeks. After that much intense study time, I just lost the mental energy to be productive. Over a period of two years, my cumulative learning graph was pretty much exactly a straight line. In other words, constant learning rate.
  No matter what you do, you're going to have a certain amount of productivity, and it's good to know your limits and when to take a break.
  
  --
  "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
31. Re:Great idea by alvinrod · 2018-07-03 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm replying to a person who stated "no exceptions." Rules with "no exceptions" are often quite bad. I prefer not to be punished for someone else's lack of imagination.
32. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot the part about snorting all the coke, munching all the adderal, and topping it off with a couple tokes of the meth pipe.
33. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  I know lots of people who **think** they are productive over those hours. I know very, very few who are. The majority are partners at the same top 5 law firm I happened to meet. Everyone else thinks they are rocking it, but they are making mistakes which are costly to uncover and fix. The funny thing is very few people will just admit, "yeah, I fall within three std. deviations of average when comes to the 120 years of published worker productivity studies."
34. Re:Great idea by dgatwood · 2018-07-03 13:24 · Score: 2
  
  The only companies that do well by forcing people to work crazy hours are game developers, and that's because they know they can burn out one group of devs and move on to the next set of suckers. For everybody else, it is generally self-defeating.
  Those aren't NEARLY the only companies. Junior invetsment bankers routinely work 90 hour weeks for 2-3 years on end. i understand that it's no better in law, and Doctors have it EVEN WORSE.
  My entire reply was in the context of its parent, which was about programming jobs. Junior investment bankers and junior lawyers have entirely different points of diminishing returns, because the type of work is entirely different.
  Software engineering is, despite having a technical component, first and foremost a creative job. Creative jobs give you the fewest useful hours per week. You can push paper and look up pertinent case law and do financial analysis and background research on random stocks for a lot more hours than you can usefully write code. Worse, because programming is so creative, you often don't realize how much your quality is suffering when you write crazy amounts of code for long periods of time, which means things start to go wrong, and nobody can explain why, so they decide that it's a crunch, and everybody has to work longer hours. This generally results in a death spiral.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
35. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  As a lawyer, you are really, really wrong on that. Legal writing is also a creative process and diminishing returns kick in pretty quick.
36. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 15:05 · Score: 0
  
  Woah, the mythical man-month has been proven wrong? Citation please.
37. Re: Great idea by orlanz · 2018-07-03 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Having done tax defense (a little bit like legal), programming, and financial work; sorry you are way off. Finance was the hardest one to do. Far too much stress with way too many highs and drops. Burn out happens very fast some days. Legal gets really hard to keep an idea straight figuring out what precedent is in scope.
  As for "creativity" in programming. There isn't much. Most problems have already been solved and that is the bulk of the work. Yes there is still creativity that sets this solution apart from the others. But I see more creativity in essays, and poems.
38. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  The mythical man month. Also, I hate newbies and noobs with big mouth and big pride.
39. Re: Great idea by dgatwood · 2018-07-03 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  As a lawyer, you are really, really wrong on that. Legal writing is also a creative process and diminishing returns kick in pretty quick.
  But I'd be shocked if that was the majority of what a new lawyer ended up doing, unless by writing, you mean crafting nearly pure boilerplate contracts and wills. The hard stuff shouldn't be going to people just starting out.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
40. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  Meanwhile, I'm going to be fucking your old lady up the ass.
41. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 16:26 · Score: 0
  
  What? Stalin and Ayn Rand are opposites and Rand was a staunch supporter of unbridled capitalism, ... oh I see what you did there
42. Re: Great idea by q_e_t · 2018-07-03 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  Unless a task can be broken down into trivial chunks, adding people doesn't always work. But to some extent that is a function of the design of the task, allocation of work, and organisation of teams. It can be effective to add people if those preceeding things are true, or can be made true.
43. Re: Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 17:40 · Score: 0
  
  As a lawyer, you are really, really wrong on that. Legal writing is also a creative process and diminishing returns kick in pretty quick.
  Sometimes it is too creative!
44. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 17:44 · Score: 0
  
  What is their productivity when not working "Seattle Hundreds"? I am baffled as to why anyone would want to work such long hours. If you are, then unless you are also being paid incredibly well, you are giving away your best years and productivity. When do you have time to become a fully-rounded human being? How do you keep an eye on new technologies to avoid burning out and then being behind the times in terms of future employment chances?
45. Re:Great idea by q_e_t · 2018-07-03 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Exceptions are potentially loopholes, so you have to be careful what the exceptions are.
46. Re:Great idea by Luckyo · 2018-07-03 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  For average person, yes. This however ignores the well documented fact that in any given organisation, most of the productive work isn't done by the average worker. It's done by the hyper productive outliers. Rule of the thumb is that in any given organisation, half of productive work is done by the square root of total workers.
  And these are the people who go to be high grade specialists and CEOs, can manage to live on 6 hours sleep a day and work essentially all of their waking hours. For decades. There's not many of them, but if you even for a moment pretend that "average worker" is the person who is in any way representative of people who a keeping the company running, your company will be bankrupt within a couple of years after you lose those hyper productive people who will chafe under the limitations. And who have all the opportunities to find another place of employment.
  So while the limitation makes sense for the average worker, you always need the way to allow the hyper productive individuals to work the way they do. Otherwise, you'll lose them, and that is literally how huge companies that are currently doing well go bankrupt in a few years.
47. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  The only companies that do well by forcing people to work crazy hours are game developers
  Oh I thought by "people" you were referring to gamers. But they don't work 60 hour weeks, they work 60 hour sessions and still perform well in creating profit for the company.
48. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 21:36 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, you modded this down.. But actually it is quite insightful. If capitalism had a voice it would say just that. That is our current reality.
49. Re:Great idea by wisnoskij · 2018-07-04 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, work outputs goes down after so many hours, but programming output also goes down the more people you add to a project.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
50. Re:Great idea by AmiMoJo · 2018-07-04 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  They need a comprehensive overhaul of labour laws. 37.5 hour standard working week, legal maximum of 48 hours.
  At least 25 days holiday based on that 37.5 hours/week, if you work more or less then holiday time scales by the same amount. Regular overtime increases your holiday allowance. Employer must allow you to take all of it every year, and any kind of punishment for taking it or benefit for not taking it (bonuses, promotions etc.) is illegal.
  Strong and free-for-the-employee tribunals to oversee it all and resolve conflicts.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
51. Re:Great idea by AmiMoJo · 2018-07-04 00:26 · Score: 2
  
  Always seemed kind of insane to me that we want doctors and lawyers to work ridiculous hours in high stress jobs, when the consequences of them making mistakes are relatively severe.
  Seems like if you have someone working 60 hours a week that's an indication that you actually need two people.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
52. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-04 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  In North America, 30hrs/week is generally considered part-time work.
53. Re:Great idea by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-04 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Now let's do that here in the US. No exceptions. If the job requires more than 50 hours to accomplish then you need more people doing it. If you can't afford to have more people doing the job then you shouldn't be in business.
  Aside from your Silly Valley folks who else in the USA actually works more than 50 hours, or even more than 40 hours, regularly? I can count the number of times I had to go over 40 in the last year on one hand and I work in engineering (real, not software.)
54. Re:Great idea by tehcyder · 2018-07-04 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Always seemed kind of insane to me that we want doctors and lawyers to work ridiculous hours in high stress jobs, when the consequences of them making mistakes are relatively severe.
  Seems like if you have someone working 60 hours a week that's an indication that you actually need two people.
  I think the theory for doctors and lawyers is that you have to be extremely dedicated and able to work well under stress, and so making you work long hours while you are training is a way of weeding out the ones who are just dilettantes.
  Utter tosh, but that seems to be how it works.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
55. Re:Great idea by Alan+R+Light · 2018-07-04 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, negative returns start at about 55 hours - so no company in their right mind would regularly schedule workers for more than 55 hours per week if they want to maximize profit. Of course short term emergencies are an exception, and there are a few workaholics who are exceptions, especially in fields which require a rare level of proficiency. But employers ignore the basic facts at their own peril.
56. Re:Great idea by Alan+R+Light · 2018-07-04 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  In the U.S., the medical cartel deliberately restricts the number of people who can become doctors in order to justify high salaries. They do this by restricting the number of students who can attend medical schools in the U.S., and by introducing a sort of hazing to reduce the number of people who want to become doctors. Some Americans avoid this by going to medical schools established by American doctors overseas precisely to deal with this problem, but the medical cartel takes other measures to make life difficult for these doctors. For instance, doctors educated in the United States are paid a modest salary during their residency, while American doctors educated to the same standards overseas are required to PAY a similar amount annually during their residency.
  Of course the population has grown even as the supply of doctors has remained about the same, so we see two competing interests: one side wants to provide more doctors and reduce costs, so we import doctors from countries that already have too few (and these doctors are far more likely to cheat our healthcare system than locally born doctors), and introduce programs to let nurses do more work traditionally done by doctors, while at the same time we restrict the number of doctors educated in the United States and make it difficult for foreigners or even American doctors educated elsewhere to practice in the United States. We insist that only doctors can prescribe medication, although there are many, many countries that don't require doctor approval and do very well with that. One side wants to restrict the number of doctors to increase salaries, but as a side effect overworks doctors, while the other side insists on cutting costs and in doing so often increases them. The system is a complete mess, but it is very profitable - at the expense of the public. This monopoly can only exist because of government enforcement.
57. Re:Great idea by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-07-05 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  True, but it's also pretty close to the amount of actual work you get out of the average 40 hour full-time worker.
58. Re:Great idea by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-07-05 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  We insist that only doctors can prescribe medication, although there are many, many countries that don't require doctor approval and do very well with that.
  But our system prevents people from prescribing highly addictive painkillers willy-nilly!
  
  What's that you say?
59. Re:Great idea by Opportunist · 2018-07-05 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  I work to live, I don't live to work. I pity you if you define yourself by what and how much your work, you must be a very, very sad being.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
60. Re:Great idea by Opportunist · 2018-07-05 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck you. I get more headhunters calling me than I can shake a stick at. You let me work the hours I want when I want or you can kiss my ass on my way out.
  Treat me like shit, expect to be treated like shit.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
61. Re: Great idea by Opportunist · 2018-07-05 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  I really pity you. A life where you got nothing left but work must suck... have you considered getting professional help?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
62. Re:Great idea by Opportunist · 2018-07-05 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Just think about that: you go to a hospital for a car accident at night, and you're getting a doctor who's been on shift for 24 straight hours.
  Fortunately not, but then again, in my country the average survival rate in ERs is higher than in the US. Wonder why.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
63. Re:Great idea by Opportunist · 2018-07-05 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I prefer to take it now. Don't like it? Kiss my ass on my way out to the interview with the next guy that wants me.
  Ya know, me having a VERY rare and VERY high demand skill set kinda means that you can kiss my ass. If I let you. But then again, why would I even want to work for assholes like you?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
64. Re:Great idea by Opportunist · 2018-07-05 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Mostly because those people are being added long, long after it would have been necessary. Of course you cannot sensibly train new personnel when you're already hitting an emergency, you can only do it when you actually have time to train new people.
  Unfortunately management is too stupid to notice it and too stubborn to listen to those that do notice it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Less than Tesla by 110010001000 · 2018-07-03 08:41 · Score: 1

Tesla is working 12 hour shifts in open air tents in order to push product out the door. At least South Korea has some sense.
1. Re:Less than Tesla by DontBeAMoran · 2018-07-03 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  12 hours shifts but still limited by law to a maximum number of hours per week, meaning they work less than five days per week.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:Less than Tesla by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  There is no limit to the number of hours worked within the US save for a few specialized professions of which Tesla line workers are not a part of. If Elon wanted them to work 110 hours a week he could legally demand it.
3. Re:Less than Tesla by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  You still banging on about Tesla? I honestly thought you'd be smart enough to have cut your losses and abandoned your shorts by now.
4. Re:Less than Tesla by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  There is no limit to the number of hours worked within the US save for a few specialized professions.
  The US is a third-world country.
5. Re:Less than Tesla by 110010001000 · 2018-07-03 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  What loss? The stock is down 12% over the last 12 months and was down over 7% again today. The shorts have "made" $1.3 billion in the last week alone.
6. Re:Less than Tesla by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 16:39 · Score: 0
  
  Try 5% over the last 12 months. And you glossed over how it surged nearly 50% in the last 3 months - the last week must be small consolation for you. But hey, don't stop now - I'm enjoying watching you try.
Only 52 by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 08:41 · Score: -1

Amazing. I'm sick of this 80 hours a week of bullshit to make up for all the slackers.
Never set a precedent that you can get things done at work or you will never have the time get things done at home.
1. Re:Only 52 by DontBeAMoran · 2018-07-03 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  "The average person in South Korea worked about 2024 hours in 2017, or approximately 38.9 hours a week."
  This falls within the standard 35~40 hours per week, doesn't it?
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:Only 52 by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. I think I am missing something. Is 40 hours a week seen as too much in the international scene?
3. Re:Only 52 by alvinrod · 2018-07-03 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  What average are they talking about though? The mean, median, or mode? If it's the mean, you could have half of the population working about 80 hours and the other half working about 0, yet your mean still comes out to 38.9 hours even though no one person actually works even close to that.
  
  There's plenty of other "gotchas" that might be built in such as taking the total number of hours divided by 52 weeks in a year, without accounting that the average person has several weeks of vacation so that the real hours worked per week is much higher.
4. Re:Only 52 by king+neckbeard · 2018-07-03 09:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  A few factors to consider, depend on the exact methodology used.:
  1. People not in the workforce, such as children and retirees.
  2. Part timers.
  3. Vacation time.
  Just two weeks vacation turns a 40 hour week into a 38.5 workweek.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
5. Re:Only 52 by novakyu · 2018-07-03 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Judging by this blurp,
  
  The average person in Germany worked the least, at 1,356 hours in 2017
  I'm guessing the figure includes people who are working part-time (or possibly not even working at all, if it is a "per-capita" number of hours worked).
6. Re:Only 52 by thesupraman · 2018-07-03 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Ffs. Simple maths too hard for you?
  That's 38.9 hours every single week. Which is a stupid measurement, but none the less.
  Workers in South Korean work their arses of. The problem with this new law is it will be ignored as much at the old one.
  In large companies 60 hours is generally considered the minimum, with more expected of you want a promotion.
7. Re:Only 52 by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Guess a slacker downvoted you.
  No idea how DontBeAMoran's comment is relevant.
8. Re:Only 52 by q_e_t · 2018-07-03 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, the median of those working full time would be much more useful a figure.
9. Re:Only 52 by thegarbz · 2018-07-03 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  2024 hours in the year average: 52 weeks in a year, -15 public holidays not falling on a weekend, - 15 mandatory vacation days = 46 weeks.
  The average person worked 44 hours in a week. So no, not within the standard.
38.9 hours a week. ? Thats weak by rojash · 2018-07-03 08:43 · Score: 1

We here in the US work 40 hours per week. So there !!
1. Re:38.9 hours a week. ? Thats weak by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 08:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I show up for 40 hours a week. They get about 5 hours of work out of me, if they're lucky.
2. Re:38.9 hours a week. ? Thats weak by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, isn't the US known for its excessive working hours?
3. Re: 38.9 hours a week. ? Thats weak by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  Just a myth. Most Americans work 35 to 40 hours.
4. Re:38.9 hours a week. ? Thats weak by JustNiz · 2018-07-03 10:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  yeah. I've seen plenty of companies that expect (i.e. dont even ask) you to work an extra 15 hours/week UNPAID just because they are missing a deadline which they promise is an exceptional situation but is clearly planned in and happens every other week .I mean we hired you because you're a team player right? Also factor in that many US companies start employees on 10 days/year paid leave and then have the balls to even take 2 or 3 of those back for non-voluntary shutdown over Christmas, and I would argue the US has some of the most oppressed salaried employees in the world.
5. Re:38.9 hours a week. ? Thats weak by AmiMoJo · 2018-07-04 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  I tell my boss that Slashdot is how I keep my skills sharp.
  I just hope she doesn't ask which skills.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
or emergency OT pay say X2 rate or 120K+col min by Joe_Dragon · 2018-07-03 08:48 · Score: 1

or emergency OT pay say X2 rate or min pay rate 120K+col.
And whilst that ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 08:56 · Score: 0

US limits work-week to 68 hours, to show them commies what it means to be bred tough, to be inbred an american
vote union we really them now more then even EU by Joe_Dragon · 2018-07-03 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

vote union we really them now more then even EU worker rights are so good
1. Re:vote union we really them now more then even EU by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 21:54 · Score: 0
  
  "vote union we really them now more then even EU worker rights are so good"
  Wait, is this proper English?
2. Re:vote union we really them now more then even EU by thegarbz · 2018-07-03 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  No. What we need more than ever is punctuation!
3. Re:vote union we really them now more then even EU by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-04 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  I blame the teachers' union.
4. Re:vote union we really them now more then even EU by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-04 19:21 · Score: 0
  
  yes we need the !
  (From this post)
  Joe Dragon is an odd breed. He posts illiterate one-line posts, many with uncertain meaning, and sometimes they get modded up enough to be visible.
5. Re:vote union we really them now more then even EU by Green+Mountain+Bot · 2018-07-05 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  It can be two things.
Hurts hourly workers by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 10:43 · Score: 0

I got few blue collar childhood friends who regularly work 60+ hours a week. For them laws like this law will lower their standard of life. They rely on 60-80 hour weeks to cover for 10-20 hour weeks.
They can't get laid, seriously by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-03 11:26 · Score: 0

It is lazy, yes, but lazy typing. It's short for "involuntary cellabacy". These pricks think that women are out to destroy the world because those assholes can't get laid. Never mind the whole "don't be an asshole" thing. Nope, it's a feminnazi scheme to chain men to the stove in the kitchen, to use those men as nothing but ATMs, while being forced to watch some female they think they have a chance with instead get railed by a foot long black cock. It can be attached to an authentic black dude or a leather momma lesbian, it matters not. I am not exaggerating. Go read thier stupid websites and bitching forums. They're pathetic.
I, too, am an fat asshole but I can get laid when I want so you must be one vile piece of shit to still be a virgin at 35.
That's average people by rsilvergun · 2018-07-03 12:03 · Score: 1

there's above average folks who can put the hours in. Normally they'd be rare and in high demand, but thanks to the H1-B program you can bring as many over as you want and keep cycling until you find one. Sure, even they eventually burn out, but thanks to overpopulation there's no shortage of them.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:That's average people by dgatwood · 2018-07-03 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  there's above average folks who can put the hours in.
  I don't believe that this is true. I have yet to encounter anyone who could work extremely long hours consistently without their productivity falling through the floor. I've certainly encountered people who work long hours and achieve tolerable levels of productivity, but in every case, if you took someone with comparable amounts of experience and had them work a 35-hour week, that second person would get at least as much done, largely because of making fewer errors that had to be corrected later.
  Mind you, there probably is some variation from one person to another as to how long a week they can tolerate (driven mostly by differences in how much sleep they need, the number of outside activities they are involved in, whether they have kids, etc.), but we are talking about the difference between being optimal up to 35 hours and being optimal up to 40 hours, not being optimal up to 60 hours or 80 hours. The only people who are optimal at programming for 80 hours per week are the ones who are really hiring a team of programmers in India or some other low-wage country to do the first 80% of the work, and then spend 20 hours each week integrating that work, all while billing it as 80 hours worth of work.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
2. Re:That's average people by dcw3 · 2018-07-03 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  This is very job dependent. And, from my own experience, a bit age dependent.
  Jobs requiring a lot of thought are going to be affected much more so than that of a burger flipper.
  In my 20-30s, I could sit and code all day, for weeks. Just feed me pizza and caffeine, and I was good to go. Now, as I'm creeping up on 60, pacing myself has become much more important.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
Obligatory Office Space by DontBeAMoran · 2018-07-04 01:35 · Score: 1

Bob Slydell: You see, what we're trying to do is get a feeling for how people spend their time at work so if you would, would you walk us through a typical day, for you?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah.
Bob Slydell: Great.
Peter Gibbons: Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door - that way Lumbergh can't see me, heh - after that I sorta space out for an hour.
Bob Porter: Da-uh? Space out?
Peter Gibbons: Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too, I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Companies Cut Week To 3 Days by Anonymous Coward · 2018-07-04 01:43 · Score: 0

In six days they can now get 104 hours of production.