Current Events > The 40 hour work week is objectively bad

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's not efficient, because employees literally have no incentive to push themselves to get a job done in 20 minutes versus an hour. Your pay is ultimately capped, so you make the same regardless of how efficient you are, with literally the only thing pushing employees to get anything done is the fear of being fired, and negative reinforcement is significantly less effective than positive reinforcement.
---

Hairistotle posted...

It's not bad for the corporations.

lol true
---

I get performance based raises/bonuses. If I can do something properly in 20 minutes that it takes them all day to do I will definitely make a lot more money.
---

I wish I could go back to 40 hours lol
---

How do you feel about people working 50,60, 70 hours or more a week then

Why do you assume people working 40 hours a week are not efficient at their jobs
---

At post #2 It absolutely is bad for the corporations. Do you even overhead?

Yeah pretty much. It's fine for crap like factory work, but for modern white collar jobs its completely unnecessary.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

Why do you assume people working 40 hours a week are not efficient at their jobs

We aren't. We have literally no incentive to quickly get to a job site. We have no incentive to stay at a job site. If we know a street route, we take that instead of freeways, just to eat up time.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Why do you assume people working 40 hours a week are not efficient at their jobs

We aren't. We have literally no incentive to quickly get to a job site. We have no incentive to stay at a job site. If we know a street route, we take that instead of freeways, just to eat up time.

Weird, my company has productivity metrics for performance that you wouldn't meet if you just decided to fuck around all day rather than doing your job.
---

xyphilia posted...

At post #2 It absolutely is bad for the corporations. Do you even overhead?

it's good in the sense that we as Americans are conditioned to believe that we must spend a minimum of 8-9 hours a day, 5 days a week at the office

that's not even touching on non-compensated overtime like with the vast majority of salaried workers

REMercsChamp posted...

if you just decided to f*** around all day rather than doing your job.

I mean, we work, but instead of working until 2:30 or whatever, we work until 1:30 depending on where we are, then take the streets back to the yard. Make it back at three-ish and kick back for an hour. And if we actually finish, we have no incentive to call our supervisor for more work.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

if you just decided to f*** around all day rather than doing your job.

I mean, we work, but instead of working until 2:30 or whatever, we work until 1:30 depending on where we are, then take the streets back to the yard. Make it back at three-ish and kick back for an hour. And if we actually finish, we have no incentive to call our supervisor for more work.

I don't know truck driving or whatever really. My only experience on it was working at a company that had drivers who were monitored via GPS. I'm not sure what goes on at whatever backwater place you work at.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

I'm not sure what goes on at whatever backwater place you work at.

And you were doing so well too.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

I'm not sure what goes on at whatever backwater place you work at.

And you were doing so well too.

It is backwards that your company would pay you to waste time and have no way of managing you via tools like GPS. Clearly you should be being monitored as you're wasting the company's time and money. What should happen here is:

1. If you don't have enough work for the day, give you more so that you do
2. If there isn't enough work, they can either reduce you to part time or lay you off and give your work to someone else to make the equivalent of 1 full time job
3. Have some sort of management tool in place to keep tabs on people like you who think they're gaming the system

I know this might hurt a lot of people's feeling on here who feel entitled to being paid to do nothing.
---

ITT: Peformance quotas dont exist.

You may not be encouraged to exceed that quota, but if thats your problem then youre in the wrong profession to begin with and/or you arent being recognized and promoted to a position that adequately occupies your abilities.

Not to mention you shouldnt need a reason to excel anyway. If you can, then laziness is the only reason not to. And that makes you less valuable.

None of this has anything to do with the 40 hour week.

The issues with 8x5 weeks have more to do with life-work balance than its efficiency for the company.

dave_is_slick posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Why do you assume people working 40 hours a week are not efficient at their jobs

We aren't. We have literally no incentive to quickly get to a job site. We have no incentive to stay at a job site. If we know a street route, we take that instead of freeways, just to eat up time.

Sounds like a you problem. And also sounds like your company doesnt actually need you anyway, if theyre okay with that behavior.
---

REMercsChamp sounds like the kind of overbearing boss that constantly watches you to make sure you're doing something that benefits the company

My boss doesn't really care what we do when it's slow and we're regularly finishing our work every day

treebrojima posted...

REMercsChamp sounds like the kind of overbearing boss that constantly watches you to make sure you're doing something that benefits the company

My boss doesn't really care what we do when it's slow and we're regularly finishing our work every day

I'm against micromanaging but for some sort of performance metrics. They have to have some way to measure your performance, or else it's just a free for all. So if your target is delivering 1 box a day, and that takes you 2 hours, then that's not enough. See my previous posts on corrective measures that should be taken to alleviate this.
---

I agree. I work two jobs and do 55-65 hour weeks, because I like money. I'd be pissed if I only had a 40 hour income. Then again I also really enjoy my work and a 12 hour day goes by quickly.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

It is backwards that your company would pay you to waste time and have no way of managing you via tools like GPS. Clearly you should be being monitored as you're wasting the company's time and money.

Oh but there is GPS in our trucks.
REMercsChamp posted...

1. If you don't have enough work for the day, give you more so that you do

Do you know what goes in cleaning channels? If your answer is anything else than "yes", don't speak on shit you oh so clearly know nothing about.
REMercsChamp posted...

2. If there isn't enough work, they can either reduce you to part time or lay you off and give your work to someone else to make the equivalent of 1 full time job
3. Have some sort of management tool in place to keep tabs on people like you who think they're gaming the system

Refer to above. Cute how you think you know so much when you don't.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

Why do you assume people working 40 hours a week are not efficient at their jobs

We aren't. We have literally no incentive to quickly get to a job site. We have no incentive to stay at a job site. If we know a street route, we take that instead of freeways, just to eat up time.

Weird, my company has productivity metrics for performance that you wouldn't meet if you just decided to fuck around all day rather than doing your job.

the degree to which performance is satisfactory is subjective. you can do your job adequately and still have the potential to even do it twice as efficiently if your incentive/environment were tweaked to evoke such behavior.

CommonJoe posted...

Sounds like a you problem. And also sounds like your company doesnt actually need you anyway, if theyre okay with that behavior.

Oh then by all means, come work for sanitation! You'll quickly change your tune.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

REMercsChamp posted...

It is backwards that your company would pay you to waste time and have no way of managing you via tools like GPS. Clearly you should be being monitored as you're wasting the company's time and money.

Oh but there is GPS in our trucks.
REMercsChamp posted...

1. If you don't have enough work for the day, give you more so that you do

Do you know what goes in cleaning channels? If your answer is anything else than "yes", don't speak on shit you oh so clearly know nothing about.
REMercsChamp posted...

2. If there isn't enough work, they can either reduce you to part time or lay you off and give your work to someone else to make the equivalent of 1 full time job
3. Have some sort of management tool in place to keep tabs on people like you who think they're gaming the system

Refer to above. Cute how you think you know so much when you don't.

What I do know is that you admitted you drive aimlessly around the block to kill time all while the company apparently is full aware of this due to their GPS monitoring.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

What I do know is that you admitted you drive aimlessly around the block to kill time all while the company apparently is full aware of this due to their GPS monitoring.

Then you need to actually read what people post. Because I said we take the streets. Not what bullshit you substituted in.
---

Your insecurity is really showing here, "dave_is_slick". I think you maybe are realizing you aren't as slick as you thought you were.

You'd be fired long ago at any company I worked for. I'm sure your days are numbered.
---

Fair enough, as long as the performance metrics are reasonable. There are two main ones at my job (service lane at a Ford dealer): gross and effective labor rate, and customer satisfaction survey ratings. The first two are easy: bring in more business, push through more work, get paid more. The surveys, however, are fucking bullshit and are weighted so poorly that they don't reflect the quality of service given by the employee or received by the customer. (That's more a reflection of the fucked up business structure of the car dealership service industry though)

REMercsChamp posted...

Your insecurity is really showing here, "dave_is_slick". I think you maybe are realizing you aren't as slick as you thought you were.

You'd be fired long ago at any company I worked for. I'm sure your days are numbered.

So instead of showing me where I said we drive aimlessly, you instead project your personal issues onto me.
---

dave_is_slick is kind of in an outlier job position. The sanitation industry isn't one where they have an excess of folks willing and able to do the job. They'd either need to drastically up the pay to create a more competitive pool or let them enjoy little perks like wasting an extra 15 minutes here and there driving. I'm sure the company knows what they're doing.
---

I'd kill for a 40 hour work week. I'm on a trauma ICU rotation this month and put in 85 hours this week. I'm dying over here.
---

CommonJoe posted...

ITT: Peformance quotas dont exist.

Which goes back to how the only immediate incentive for an employee to work harder is the fear of being fired, and how negative reinforcement is significantly less effective than positive reinforcement.

CommonJoe posted...

Not to mention you shouldnt need a reason to excel anyway. If you can, then laziness is the only reason not to. And that makes you less valuable.

It's not laziness to not want to do extra work for no extra reward. That's an asinine thought process. The whole idea that people are lazy just because they don't want to work harder for their corporate overlords who are just gonna pay them the same regardless is an idea pushed by these corporations to shame people into becoming wage slaves.

CommonJoe posted...

None of this has anything to do with the 40 hour week.

The issues with 8x5 weeks have more to do with life-work balance than its efficiency for the company.

Except yes, efficiency is a problem. The average employee spends maybe half the 40 hour work week actually working, because at this point, everybody knows employers are simply trying to milk the most work they can out of you for the least amount of pay possible. A lot of office work in particular is busy work or work that can easily be done at home.

If employers had it their way, where employees were genuinely working their hardest for every single hour of that 40 hour week, employees will eventually get burnt out, depressed, exhausted and most likely out-of-shape and you will start to see diminishing returns and decreased productivity. It is physically impossible for a adult human being to work that much at a job they don't like (which is most jobs) without being stressed out to near death, and especially bad when they don't even have the energy or time to properly take care of their body.
---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

They'd either need to drastically up the pay to create a more competitive pool

I would kill for this. I can't think of one person who, after learning everything we do in wastewater, thinks we're paid enough.
---

Nah. 6am-2pm is the perfect shift.
---

REMercsChamp posted...

How do you feel about people working 50,60, 70 hours or more a week then

Why do you assume people working 40 hours a week are not efficient at their jobs

Because Germans have the world's shortest work week and they are more prosperous than America.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/07/news/economy/germany-28-hour-work-week/index.html

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6172262

Also, some people are simply more productive at different times of the day.

I know I'm not a morning person, so I spend a huge chunk of the morning just trying to mentally prepare myself for the rest of the day. That 40-hour/9-5/6 thing is one size fits all, and it's laughably asinine if you're trying to maximize productivity.
---

1. If you're not already motivated to exceed the min performance then youre not in the right profession.

And mind you, most of the time youd have to put more effort into not exceeding those standards than just meeting them. IE, deliberately waste your employers time. Daves employer clearly doesnt give two shits. Most companies arent like this, and if they are theyre likely being forced to overpay you anyway which is why they tolerate it.

2. That has nothing to do with 40 hour weeks. Like I said, its the life-work balance thats the issue. That doesnt change if its a 20 hour week or a 120 hour week.

Whats best for the employer and the employee is a balance that gets both sides whats needed and whats wanted.

A 10x4 week is better than a 8x5 week. Thats regularly been proven. As is pay for performance. A self-motivated employee is going to perform better than someone thats just there to get a paycheck.

Which is precisely why performance quotas exist. So that the people who arent there because they want to be perform well enough to keep the business going.

Again, this has nothing to do with working 40 hours. If you actually have a job this should be apparent. Most places if you act like this, youll either be fired outright or have your hours reduced until you quit. Meanwhile the person who gives a shit will stay on and eventually get more out of the job.

TL;DR if you dont like your job find a better one. Its not any ones responsibility to make your life more comfortable than they have to by law, which is what the minimum wage is for.
---

Metro2 posted...

https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/07/news/economy/germany-28-hour-work-week/index.html

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6172262

Neither of these articles prove anything about a shorter work week and instead just shows Germans are better workers who choose to work longer because its more money.
---

CommonJoe posted...

1. If you're not already motivated to exceed the min performance then youre not in the right profession.

Yeah, that'd be great if most people worked in jobs that they like and were motivated solely by their passion for what they're doing with the money only being a bonus, but this isn't the case. Your logic simply doesn't hold up in reality.

CommonJoe posted...

2. That has nothing to do with 40 hour weeks. Like I said, its the life-work balance thats the issue. That doesnt change if its a 20 hour week or a 120 hour week.

Yes, it does. 20 hours per week vs 40 hours means more free time, as you mentioned, better work-life balance, which leads to less stress, more healthy people and better productivity. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how this equation works. For example, if I get sick due to stress, that's time I have to take off from work. Even if I don't have to take time off, I might come to work with a huge migraine and won't be able to focus. I might even have to leave work early anyway.
---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Also, some people are simply more productive at different times of the day.

I know I'm not a morning person, so I spend a huge chunk of the morning just trying to mentally prepare myself for the rest of the day. That 40-hour/9-5/6 thing is one size fits all, and it's laughably asinine if you're trying to maximize productivity.

Except most places dont have one fixed shift like this. And many jobs that do not need minute to minute productivity.
---

CommonJoe posted...

Metro2 posted...

https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/07/news/economy/germany-28-hour-work-week/index.html

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6172262

Neither of these articles prove anything about a shorter work week and instead just shows Germans are better workers who choose to work longer because its more money.

Maybe that's because Germans don't need to take constant breaks for small talk and Facebook posts just to break up a long, monotonous work day.

Americans have to bring their personal life to work with them because they don't have time throughout the week to do otherwise.
---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

CommonJoe posted...

1. If you're not already motivated to exceed the min performance then youre not in the right profession.

Yeah, that'd be great if most people worked in jobs that they like and were motivated solely by their passion for what they're doing with the money only being a bonus, but this isn't the case. Your logic simply doesn't hold up in reality.

CommonJoe posted...

2. That has nothing to do with 40 hour weeks. Like I said, its the life-work balance thats the issue. That doesnt change if its a 20 hour week or a 120 hour week.

Yes, it does. 20 hours per week vs 40 hours means more free time, as you mentioned, better work-life balance, which leads to less stress, more healthy people and better productivity. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how this equation works. For example, if I get sick due to stress, that's time I have to take off from work. Even if I don't have to take time off, I might come to work with a huge migraine and won't be able to focus. I might even have to leave work early anyway.

1. Then dont bitch about your job being shit if you arent going to search for something better. And no that doesnt mean going jobless.

2. Its called balance. 20 hours isn't likely to be balanced for your employer. And if it is then they also need more people. Which means paying more per hour is dumb.
---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

CommonJoe posted...

Metro2 posted...

https://money.cnn.com/2018/02/07/news/economy/germany-28-hour-work-week/index.html

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6172262

Neither of these articles prove anything about a shorter work week and instead just shows Germans are better workers who choose to work longer because its more money.

Maybe that's because Germans don't need to take constant breaks for small talk and Facebook posts just to break up a long, monotonous work day.

Americans have to bring their personal life to work with them because they don't have time throughout the week to do otherwise.

No. They just dont want to. The first article literally says Germans were like this as is, having a choice of lower hours (which btw comes with less pay because of that) just gives them slightly more direct flexibility. Most take more hours.

And lol if you dont have time during the roughly 56 hours you get in the week to do something other than work or sleep. Americans just like slacking off.
---

CommonJoe posted...

Then dont bitch about your job being shit if you arent going to search for something better. And no that doesnt mean going jobless.

And once again, you show how completely detached from reality you are.

Because yes, ideally, every person would leave their shit job for an awesome job. Too bad that, factually speaking, there are more working age adults in America than there are good jobs.

CommonJoe posted...

Its called balance. 20 hours isn't likely to be balanced for your employer.

No, they wouldn't see it as balanced, because most employers do not know how to maximize for efficiency. Ever heard of the phrase "work smarter, not harder"? Forcing people to sit at a desk for 8 hours a day does not guarantee that you'll actually see results, and there's tons of research out there to suggest the exact opposite.

You must not like facts. Your entire argument is based off of nothing but negative stereotypes about Americans.
---

You're not getting paid for efficiency. You are getting paid for obedience. If a business operator is having trouble with efficiency its not the workers fault. its managements fault for not creating a system where workers work efficiently.

I feel like people defending the "40 hour" work week have no concept of reality. there are several big problems with the "40 hour" work week.

1. it rarely is ever actually 40 hours, in america i think the average is something like 47 hours. this does not even include commutes to and from work. it certainly doesnt include prep time for work, for instance the time to get up, get dressed, make breakfast, etc. Traffic is certainly not factored into this either. all of that extra stuff that isn't you literally on the clock at the job comes out of your "play" time in the whole work-play-sleep 8 hours for each split. and of course many professions like nurses and doctors get completely steam rolled with BS shifts. My nurse friend last night was just working a 14 hour shift with no break. thats beyond BS. this is not a random one off example either, this kind of shit is common place.

2. a huge flaw in this system is that it pays based on time and not performance. as others have pointed out, why would you go tell your boss you are finished early only for him to give you more work for no extra pay when you can drag out one assignment instead? in essence do you do A or B

A. do one job for X in an hour
B. do 3 jobs for X in an hour?

the option most people are going to pick is A because X is the same in each scenario. Retail, one of the largest forms of employment has to be one of the biggest offenders of this, but it is hardly alone. office work as many have pointed out, falls in this category.

3. due to the fact that the 40 hour work week essentially kills your free time, it kills the life of the employee and makes them unhealthy and miserable. for fucks sake, look at the health of your average american. the average american is in terrible health and struggles greatly to find a balance between work and living.

4. scared of boredom. in america we look down upon those that have free time. if you aren't busy, it is seen as a bad thing. we set up as heroes those that work 70 hours a week. sure there is nothing wrong with passion and drive, and i do not discourage that, but you cannot work 70 hours a week, and expect a happy life balance. mathamtically there is not enough time left in the week.

5. salaried employees are often abused.

6. smart phones have meant, work never really leaves you. there is always an email to check, and you can always be reached while on vacation.

7. diminishing returns....at some point burn out occurs, and employers fail to grasp this. working people 40+ hours a week, is about as effective as asking a person to drive drunk. it really accomplishes nothing, you just flat out stop being productive and hit diminishing returns.

I could go on I am sure.

I'm also trying to figure out how Americans ended up so "lazy", with a job culture that demands hard work for lesser pay and longer hours.

Surely, you must have an explanation for that.
---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

CommonJoe posted...

Then dont bitch about your job being shit if you arent going to search for something better. And no that doesnt mean going jobless.

And once again, you show how completely detached from reality you are.

Because yes, ideally, every person would leave their shit job for an awesome job. Too bad that, factually speaking, there are more working age adults in America than there are good jobs.

CommonJoe posted...

Its called balance. 20 hours isn't likely to be balanced for your employer.

No, they wouldn't see it as balanced, because most employers do not know how to maximize for efficiency. Ever heard of the phrase "work smarter, not harder"? Forcing people to sit at a desk for 8 hours a day does not guarantee that you'll actually see results, and there's tons of research out there to suggest the exact opposite.

You must not like facts.

1. Hence why you search until you find one. Theres nothing stopping you from keeping a job search going just because youre employed.

2. Most working people arent sitting at a desk.

You realize the sterotypical cubicle job from the movies doesnt exist right?

And if companies maximized for efficiency youd either be out of a job or be working 4 or 5 jobs anyway.

You either arent going to live on 20 hours or youre being drastically overpaid. That is >not < balance.

You call me detached but I dont think youve even held a job. Much less multiple jobs.
---

CommonJoe posted...

You call me detached but I dont think youve even held a job. Much less multiple jobs.

I've worked in an office. Try again.
---