Working Hours

[cynic]

He was a real visionary- he wanted his staff to see him like an equal- he didn’t want to come off like an uptight manager. He just let people to come and go as they please. He never made us feel guilty about “letting the team down” --he just hired more people to pick up the slack. We came in late, hung out most of the time, talked about what a great boss he was, and took off early. It was awesome.

This is poor example, because you and your friends were stealing from your employer (turning up late, not working during hours you were paid to work). The boss happened to be an idiot and let you get away with it. No wonder the business failed. Nothing to do with working people 80 hours a week, for wages well below the current minimum.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Do you have any evidence for this? Or you simply re-interpret data to fit your ideological predilections?

Funny you asked that, because the thought that was going through my head was that the author in question reinterpreted the work ethic of the great depression to fit his stance.

The original intent of creating the 6 hour shift model was to create more jobs.

It was originally considered a temporary compromise by which people worked and earned a little less, in order to give those who were not working a chance to work too.

The fact that some of them came to like this arrangement was an unexpected side-effect.

Compare that sequence of events to the modern argument for shorter days.

In the original context, the goal was that more people were able to work during a time when people couldn’t get work.

In the present context, this is being spun around to say that people should have to work less during a time when people just don’t like to work.

 

[thomfra]

Does committment equate to hours in your mind? I want heart, initiative, mind, strength. The kind of people you have to chase home. They still exist.

Yes. We all want to employ those kind of people.

But what hours are reasonable to expect from an employee?

 

[thomfra]

My father was one of the fortunate ones who had a job during the entire depression. There was more of a sense of community back then and people did help each other. Those who had little would find odd jobs for those who had even less and would afford them the dignity of earning what little they could pay them.

A couple of years after I entered the work force, I got on as a clerk at the post office. For three months, I worked from 5 in the afternoon until 5:30 the next morning, 7 days a week, at $2.16 an hour straight pay, no time and a half for over 40. I was happy to do it because it gave me the opportunity to purchase a house for my growing family.

The crux of the discussion is: Imagine the post office job is the only job you can get. Should an employer be allowed demand that you work those hours for your entire working life? i.e. no family life, no penalty rates, no holidays. **What is your answer to that? **

 

[thomfra]

In the present context, this is being spun around to say that people should have to work less during a time when people just don’t like to work.

Oscarthecat, you couldn’t make more of a Clichéd statement if you tried…

“…people just don’t like to work…:”

next comes:
“young people these days”
“back in *my *day”…

You realise the ancient greeks also complained about the youth of the day?

 

[thomfra]

My father was one of the fortunate ones who had a job during the entire depression. There was more of a sense of community back then and people did help each other.

Then there were the buisnesses that profiteered from the situation by cutting wages, and saying “well the market decides”…and screamed “communist” if people dared to try to form a union.

In many countries (Australia for example) it was massive government spending and intervention with the establishment of major projects which managed to kick start the economy again.

 

[geezerbob]

Yes. We all have stories of how hard we worked. I picked fruit 7 days a week for 3 months when I was at University. Hard work let me tell you. But not really relevant.

PS: I spent most of that money on beer and wasted the rest.

The crux of the discussion is: Imagine the post office job is the only job you can get. Should an employer be allowed demand that you work those hours for your entire working life? i.e. no family life, no penalty rates, no holidays. **What is your answer to that? **

Thanks for trying to make me out to be a liar. No, I didn’t walk barefoot 5 miles to school in the snow every day, uphill both ways, but I did do what I posted earlier, your snide remards notwithstanding. I don’t feel singled out because you seem to do that with everyone, which is a clear violation of the rules of this forum. I posted that about my father because someone, possibly you, asked for proof of the reasons Kellogg’s shortened working hours during the depression. What I posted was anecdotal, so it was relevant, much moreso than your insulting remarks.

Since you apparently are unable to be civil, I’ll not bother responding to the question in the last paragraph of your post.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

The charity level in this thread is less than what is expected here at CAF. Please make your points without the snippy personal remarks.

 

[nsm]

I don’t know how Americans do it.

Me either!! It is horrible. I am a grad student, and get a pittance of a living stipend though I work round the clock and am expected to travel to archives (some international) and work during the summer. But I have it easy. In order for us to live my poor husband works on average 70 hours a week, has ZERO sick days, almost wasn’t allowed to take ONE personal day off that didn’t count against his vacation days when his sister’s husband died (suddenly and at a young age leaving three young children) because he wasn’t “immediate family,” and one of his bosses pulled him aside to express concern that he wasn’t working enough! The job calls us on every vacation, including this past one when we were in the Netherlands for archival research for me.

It is absolutely dreadful. Our weight has creeped up, because we have no time to cook healthy food, to sit down and have a nice dinner!!! He is a managment consulant and this is the norm for his job, and we are abosolutely living within our means, and it would be devestating to us to take an income hit. I dream of living somewhere where I can actually take time to visit my family that is all over the country as well as travel for longer than ten days!

 

[cynic]

The crux of the discussion is: Imagine the post office job is the only job you can get. Should an employer be allowed demand that you work those hours for your entire working life? i.e. no family life, no penalty rates, no holidays. **What is your answer to that? **

Don’t expect one, apart from the “you obviously just don’t like working” type of response.

 

[Biggie]

Yes. We all want to employ those kind of people.

But what hours are reasonable to expect from an employee?

Salaried or hourly?

 

[Biggie]

Yes. We all want to employ those kind of people.

But what hours are reasonable to expect from an employee?

Salaried or hourly?

From hourly people, I want 40 hours per week with an openness to work overtime in emergencies. If I am structured in such a way that I must require overtime frequently, I probably need to hire because on sum the overtime is probably more expensive. The overtime area is somewhat an art, to the extent that some individuals want overtime to increase earnings and capping overtime in their case kills initiative and makes unhappy people. On the other hand, some people are excessively concerned about time, so you have to know your people. In emergencies, I want to be able to call on people and that requires good will. They need to know me and I need to know them. In the end if the trust between us does not grow, they probably need to look for a job, and this is an at will state so I have options.

From salaried people, I think 50 hours a week is reasonable. 60 hours a week is probably a tipping point and much more and I am sending you home and making sure you take vacations, etc… Here, I want heart to dictate on both sides of the formula. Some weeks, slow weeks, the work is done in 40 and you go play golf. Some days you put in a 12 hour day, a 60 hour week. A person lets you know where they are and what they want by their conduct. A salaried person who watches the clock at all times and flees his desk at the 8 hour slash has told me what he is interested in. If our interests at the time for his position line up, then fine; if not, well …

Overall, I like working with adults and not children. Work is not spelled FUN. It’s a four letter word for a reason. At work we are about a serious thing in life - feeding our families - and I do not want to play children’s games at something so important. So I want to work with people who see it as a serious business and understand what we are trying to do. Then I can treat them as adults and they can treat me as an adult.

All you have to do is go into business for yourself or work for a company that fails to understand how serious and devastating failure can be to people, to families. My committment is that if it happens, it may come from mistakes I have made but it will not come about because of a lack of effort on my part. I want the same committment back. To that extent, mistakes don’t get people fired by me; apathy, childishness, dishonesty, exclusive self interest are something else.

I understand I am not talking employment by Con Ed or UPS or GM. It is unfortunate, to my way of thinking, that such environments are litigious in both directions. When a person seeks and obtains that type of work, he has sought it because it’s secure, it has benefits and the rates of pay are high, and he should know as well what is required of him. Most jobs in this country, however, are in a small business of some kind and the terrain is a little different.

 

[cynic]

Salaried or hourly?
From hourly people, I want 40 hours per week with an openness to work overtime in emergencies.
…

From salaried people, I think 50 hours a week is reasonable. 60 hours a week is probably a tipping point and much more and I am sending you home and making sure you take vacations, etc… Here, I want heart to dictate on both sides of the formula. Some weeks, slow weeks, the work is done in 40 and you go play golf. Some days you put in a 12 hour day, a 60 hour week. A person lets you know where they are and what they want by their conduct. A salaried person who watches the clock at all times and flees his desk at the 8 hour slash has told me what he is interested in. If our interests at the time for his position line up, then fine; if not, well …
.

That sounds… pretty reasonable, was there an argument here to begin with?

Overall, I like working with adults and not children. Work is not spelled FUN. It’s a four letter word for a reason. .

Which would at least acknowledge that time needs to be allowed for FUN outside of work.

 

[Biggie]

That sounds… pretty reasonable, was there an argument here to begin with?

I dunno! :whacky: But thomfra has issues with hours so I thought he deserved the full answer. I gave him a chance to escape.

 

[leonie]

Funny you asked that, because the thought that was going through my head was that the author in question reinterpreted the work ethic of the great depression to fit his stance.

The original intent of creating the 6 hour shift model was to create more jobs.

It was originally considered a temporary compromise by which people worked and earned a little less, in order to give those who were not working a chance to work too.

The fact that some of them came to like this arrangement was an unexpected side-effect.

Compare that sequence of events to the modern argument for shorter days.

In the original context, the goal was that more people were able to work during a time when people couldn’t get work.

In the present context, this is being spun around to say that people should have to work less during a time when people just don’t like to work.

True, it created more jobs, but…productivity went up and the workers were paid for 7 hours–after two years they worked 6, but were paid for 8.

Of course, there were mechanical improvements that aided productivity, too.

probably what we need is more flexibility.

 

[thomfra]

I dunno! :whacky: But thomfra has issues with hours so I thought he deserved the full answer. I gave him a chance to escape.

Well I guess in some some round about way what we are discussing here, is to what extent it should be left up to the employer to set maximum working hours, and to what extent legislation should play a part (in the case where there is no union agreement for example).

What you describe, is of course reasonable. But say you were not a very good manager, and found that your buisiness was run so that 60 hour weeks were the norm, not the exception. Should you then have right to say to people “take it or leave it”. Many would say “well they can go get a job where they work 40 hours a week”.

This is often a possibilty for the educated, and for those with jobs where there are a shortage of skills…but for the uneducated, non-mobile, non-skilled labour force it’s a different scenario alltogether.

 

[Biggie]

Well I guess in some some round about way what we are discussing here, is to what extent it should be left up to the employer to set maximum working hours, and to what extent legislation should play a part (in the case where there is no union agreement for example).

What you describe, is of course reasonable. But say you were not a very good manager, and found that your buisiness was run so that 60 hour weeks were the norm, not the exception. Should you then have right to say to people “take it or leave it”. Many would say “well they can go get a job where they work 40 hours a week”.

This is often a possibilty for the educated, and for those with jobs where there are a shortage of skills…but for the uneducated, non-mobile, non-skilled labour force it’s a different scenario alltogether.

I see your point and I don’t want to sound unsympathetic. Of course my first answer is that the market dictates as to the employer, since employment is a free market and there is no entitlement to a job (a hard thing for some to realize).

An employer is competing against other employers for a limited pool of people (in small business land). E.g., a machinist in our market commands easily 20 - 25.00 per hour starting pay, benefits expected. He doesn’t like what he hears on the interview, he walks. He doesn’t like the conditions on employment, he walks. A better job opens up, he walks. An outside salesperson has similar power. A systems analyst, similar power.

Oddly, not the uneducated in my humble opinion, but the manager most easily falls through the cracks. A person who has nothing to recommend him has had to reconcile himself long ago to general labor, the service industry, etc. unless he’s nuts. The employment opportunities there are limitless, but of course the rate of pay is the issue. The manager, on the other hand, has achieved a level of education and experience, but in a field where generalized, hard to describe, sometimes specific skills are not easily transferable.Unable to easily move laterally or vertically, he could be the easiest prey for this concern you have over expectation of hours.

 

[cynic]

People talk about 12 hour days as if it were nothing, but with an hours lunch this is from 8:00 a.m to 9:00 p.m.

That’s a long time to be doing the same set of tasks over and over.

 

[JMJ_coder]

There can be a great deal of injustice in the workplace. A case in point:

I had a job for a manufacturing company as a general laborer. The working conditions were deplorable - at least as psychological abuse goes. We were reprimanded to no end. One time I was upbraided by my manager for talking to someone during working hours. Who was I talking to - another manager who was asking if I wanted to work overtime for the upcoming weekend. I was reprimanded for not working fast enough - and when I picked up the pace and made some errors, I was yelled at for that. Overtime was expected, not officially mandatory, but an unofficial one none-the-less. Finally, I injured myself on the job (back injury). I couldn’t prove I was hurt on the job because the symptoms didn’t come on until after I got home that night (I think my chiropractor was paid by workman’s comp, though). After that, they had no use for me. They turned that into such a hostile work environment with the intent of inciting me to leave (I don’t think they could legally fire me at the time). I have heard that they have done this to other employees in the past and they were doing it to another employee I was sort of friends with at the time. Finally I quit, though by my own fault (from a combination of eagerness to get out of that situation and inexperience) I left the door open for them to get out of paying unemployment.

Sadly, similar such stories are not uncommon.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Several here have posted stating that there shouldn’t be a cap on the number of hours an employee can work - i.e., one shouldn’t be impeded from working 80+ hours a week.

What about an employee who wants to work less? Try finding an employer who would agree to let an employee work 20-30 hours a week? It seems 40 hours a week is a minimum to a maximum of whatever is allowed.

Some may say - then just work at a part-time job. That’s all fine and dandy, but try to find a part-time job that doesn’t involve flipping burgers, selling trinkets, or cleaning who knows what. Try finding a part-time job as an engineer or an accountant. Try finding a part-time job that offers a benefits package (there are actually some that do, but they are rare).