[ColossalContrarian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'H')ere in the Lucky country if your employer makes you regularly work overtime (38 hours+) you can sue them for the difference and if you are injured or cause an injury whilst overworking the employer is liable.

I have done about 3 hours of unpaid overtime ever. I do not 'put up' with this kind of treatment and I don't think anyone should.
The more suckers tolerating 'unpaid overtime on salary' the more mongrel employers will expect it from others. Those in this situation may try to kid themselves (or others) of their superior work ethic, but really you are victims of an unfair system and or an unfair employer. You are also part of the cancer undermining ordinary worker's rights fought for over many years.

[prajeshbhat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NickyBoy', 'M')y European based company is in direct competition with American companies. We have a significantly shorter effective working week then our slave-driven American counterparts and we produce a better quality product at a lower cost.

Our managers long ago figured out the negative effects of forcing staff to endure longer working weeks over a prolonged period.

I don't have the exact numbers here to hand but they were something like:

35 hours work a week results in 35 hours of highly effective output from an employee. They remain fully focussed and enthusiastic.

-55 hours can be maintained for 2 weeks with no noticeable drop in employee output, competence or enthusiasm.

-The third week of 55 hours will result in only receiving around 45 hours of effective output when measured on the same standards as the first week. Employees will occasionally make mistakes, think slower and work slower.

-The fourth week of 55 hours will result in only receiving around 35 hours of effective output when measured on the same standards as the first week. Employees will make multiple mistakes, think slower, struggle to maintain focus and work slower. This is the break even point where an employee is working 55 hours a week but only producing the same amount of high-quality output as someone kept on a 35 hour week.

-The fifth and following weeks of enforced 55 hour weeks will see less than 35 hours of effective output when measured on the same standards as the first week. Employees kept at a permanent 55 hour working week will at this point onwards produce less output than an employees kept at a 35 hour working week.

These were the results of an internal investigation by our management team, kept hidden from the staff. Managers now keep us on a 35 hour working week, pay us the same as we would get for working a 40 hour week and get more effective work out of us than our slave-driven American competitors who force their workforce to do a 55 hour working week (with a big chunk of that unpaid )

Silly Americans.
Land of the free? Heh.

[ColossalContrarian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('prajeshbhat', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NickyBoy', 'M')y European based company is in direct competition with American companies.......
..........
Silly Americans.
Land of the free? Heh.

[prajeshbhat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ColossalContrarian', '
')
Not sure why this is a right or left deal, even if I were to only work 35 hours per week at my regular job, and I were given more vacation time, I would use it working on my cabin in the mountains... I'm a work-a-holic you might say.

Bring on the 35 hour work week and two months of vacation and all the other lavish deals the French get. It just gives me more time to work on my cabin, and there will always be work for me to do up there. I'll probably just have less money to put into my cabin and other hobbies.

And don't tell anyone on the right or left but we need to get rid of all volunteer fire dpartments and mountain rescue teams because they're taking jobs away from people who could be getting paid to hold those positions.

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('prajeshbhat', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ColossalContrarian', '
')
Not sure why this is a right or left deal, even if I were to only work 35 hours per week at my regular job, and I were given more vacation time, I would use it working on my cabin in the mountains... I'm a work-a-holic you might say.

Bring on the 35 hour work week and two months of vacation and all the other lavish deals the French get. It just gives me more time to work on my cabin, and there will always be work for me to do up there. I'll probably just have less money to put into my cabin and other hobbies.

And don't tell anyone on the right or left but we need to get rid of all volunteer fire dpartments and mountain rescue teams because they're taking jobs away from people who could be getting paid to hold those positions.

[Serial_Worrier]

This is nonsense. People who really make businesses grow work upwards of 70-80 hours a week. 35-40 are for desk-bound dunderheads.

[peeker01]

My sister owned a restaurant for 10 years. She employed 30 people. She considered an 80 hour week
a vacation. Never made a dime, other than wages, but enjoyed the satisfaction of being her own boss.

[Loki]

I'm not ideologically opposed to a 35-hour week, as some here are, but I agree with BH and Pops that a 4-day work week would be a far superior change, and one not dependent on government regulations. It'd reduce energy use and increase free time (for the employed at least).

I think the OP's math is far too simplistic, but I agree a 35-hour week would likely create some jobs overall. But it'd also likely reduce productivity, which might hurt small businesses, the real job creators in this country. I'm not eager to add to their burden, or to continue handing the economy over to concentrated wealth.

The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to support a reduction to 35 hrs/wk. If we want to address unemployment, we need to (1) pull out of all “free trade” agreements, and (2) institute a zero-net-gain immigration policy. These two measures would do far more to reduce unemployment than tinkering with overtime rules. Discouraging concentrated economic power would also help (e.g., limiting number of stores a chain can own, confiscatory taxes on the ultra-wealthy, transaction taxes on Wall Street, much more aggressive monopoly busting, allowing local bans on big box stores, and the like).

It's a moot point for me, though, farms are exempt from overtime rules. Not too worried about it, I'd rather be able to work 50+ hours a week during the height of the season than be cut to 40. Gotta make hay while the sun shines. Not much work in the winter. I'd be even poorer than I already am if I could only work 35 hrs/wk.

[Pops]

It's just an exercise really, Americans really aren't the sit around at the table for 3 hours types I don't think. lol!

But I think it points up just how bad a predicament we are in. I'm a knee-jerk protectionist but it would only hurt us, we export $2 trillion worth of stuff annually after all and starting a trade war isn't gonna do anything except kill off more jobs, it takes quite a few Chinese chachkies to make up for one 767.

I would have no trouble with lowering immigration though, we bring in over a million people a year. I'm not sure what the benefit is except the old saw about growth = capital accumulation. Taking in the poor/weak/hungry isn't buying us much love these days.

[Timo]

Pure stream of thought/open speculation here on my part, but being a slacker/GenXer, the 35 hour week sounds good to me! Earlier in this thread, or maybe somewhere else, someone mentioned the very basis of our capitalist economic system being dependent on producing surpluses in order to generate wealth. This 35-hour work week would seriously cut back on the surpluses each and every business would be able to produce, thus reducing their ability to generate wealth. From my perspective though, is this necessarily a bad thing? Is striving for more, More, MORE at all costs really what's in our collective best interest? I make decent money in my job. I'm not rich or wealthy by any means, but i could do very well with less. More of this or more of that has never been my motivation for participating inn our economic system. I live within my means, and i get by just fine. 35 hours per week would inevitably diminish our economic system, but in that sense, it's already broken, so what's the harm? On the personal level, quite often less of one thing turns out to be more of something else that's more enjoyable than what i gave up! This concept can't be applied universally, of course. This new model would definitely hurt some people more than it hurts others, but i speculate that a lot of people here at PO would agree with me that much leaner times are ahead for all of us, anyway, whether we go 35/hrs/wk, or not.

[SeaGypsy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ColossalContrarian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'H')ere in the Lucky country if your employer makes you regularly work overtime (38 hours+) you can sue them for the difference and if you are injured or cause an injury whilst overworking the employer is liable.

I have done about 3 hours of unpaid overtime ever. I do not 'put up' with this kind of treatment and I don't think anyone should.
The more suckers tolerating 'unpaid overtime on salary' the more mongrel employers will expect it from others. Those in this situation may try to kid themselves (or others) of their superior work ethic, but really you are victims of an unfair system and or an unfair employer. You are also part of the cancer undermining ordinary worker's rights fought for over many years.

[Timo]

Also, i agree with Pops that a cap on immigration would be a big boon to the over all economy. Nearly every other country in the world has stricter immigration standards than we do. Our economy is overstretched, and it's actually starting to break because we simply have too many people. I normally am the last person to stereotype people by any characteristic, but i think i can fairly safely assume that most immigrants to this country come in search of jobs, without already having a job here to begin with. This strains our overall economic well-being. More people may theoretically mean more tax revenues, but the balance of their contributions, i suspect, leans in the other direction.

[nobodypanic]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', '
')the solution to our problems is to jettison the entire market system.

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NickyBoy', 'M')y European based company is in direct competition with American companies. We have a significantly shorter effective working week then our slave-driven American counterparts and we produce a better quality product at a lower cost.

Our managers long ago figured out the negative effects of forcing staff to endure longer working weeks over a prolonged period.

I don't have the exact numbers here to hand but they were something like:

35 hours work a week results in 35 hours of highly effective output from an employee. They remain fully focussed and enthusiastic.

-55 hours can be maintained for 2 weeks with no noticeable drop in employee output, competence or enthusiasm.

-The third week of 55 hours will result in only receiving around 45 hours of effective output when measured on the same standards as the first week. Employees will occasionally make mistakes, think slower and work slower.

-The fourth week of 55 hours will result in only receiving around 35 hours of effective output when measured on the same standards as the first week. Employees will make multiple mistakes, think slower, struggle to maintain focus and work slower. This is the break even point where an employee is working 55 hours a week but only producing the same amount of high-quality output as someone kept on a 35 hour week.

-The fifth and following weeks of enforced 55 hour weeks will see less than 35 hours of effective output when measured on the same standards as the first week. Employees kept at a permanent 55 hour working week will at this point onwards produce less output than an employees kept at a 35 hour working week.

These were the results of an internal investigation by our management team, kept hidden from the staff. Managers now keep us on a 35 hour working week, pay us the same as we would get for working a 40 hour week and get more effective work out of us than our slave-driven American competitors who force their workforce to do a 55 hour working week (with a big chunk of that unpaid )

Silly Americans.
Land of the free? Heh.

[Newfie]

Snip Bertrand Russel - In Praise of Idleness
http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessa ... leness.htm

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')odern technique has made it possible to diminish enormously the amount of labor required to secure the necessaries of life for everyone. This was made obvious during the war (WWI). At that time all the men in the armed forces, and all the men and women engaged in the production of munitions, all the men and women engaged in spying, war propaganda, or Government offices connected with the war, were withdrawn from productive occupations. In spite of this, the general level of well-being among unskilled wage-earners on the side of the Allies was higher than before or since. The significance of this fact was concealed by finance: borrowing made it appear as if the future was nourishing the present. But that, of course, would have been impossible; a man cannot eat a loaf of bread that does not yet exist. The war showed conclusively that, by the scientific organization of production, it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world. If, at the end of the war, the scientific organization, which had been created in order to liberate men for fighting and munition work, had been preserved, and the hours of the week had been cut down to four, all would have been well. Instead of that the old chaos was restored, those whose work was demanded were made to work long hours, and the rest were left to starve as unemployed. Why? Because work is a duty, and a man should not receive wages in proportion to what he has produced, but in proportion to his virtue as exemplified by his industry.

[ColossalContrarian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ColossalContrarian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'H')ere in the Lucky country if your employer makes you regularly work overtime (38 hours+) you can sue them for the difference and if you are injured or cause an injury whilst overworking the employer is liable.

I have done about 3 hours of unpaid overtime ever. I do not 'put up' with this kind of treatment and I don't think anyone should.
The more suckers tolerating 'unpaid overtime on salary' the more mongrel employers will expect it from others. Those in this situation may try to kid themselves (or others) of their superior work ethic, but really you are victims of an unfair system and or an unfair employer. You are also part of the cancer undermining ordinary worker's rights fought for over many years.

[Newfie]

CC,

Your arguments make no sense. It is very hard for me to see a connection between what SeaGypsy wrote and your attacks.

[ColossalContrarian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'C')C,

Your arguments make no sense. It is very hard for me to see a connection between what SeaGypsy wrote and your attacks.

[SeaGypsy]

That is a matter of oversight by the employer. If you are employed under a set of conditions, you and the employer are obliged to stick at least in principle to those conditions. The employer gets their 'pound of flesh' the employee gets their 'pound of salt'. Bludging, or presenteeism, is as immoral as forcing employees to work regular unpaid overtime.

On the other subject, I have volunteered into industries I want to get into, some for enjoyment (glassblowing/ ending up earning over $100 an hour/ 10 years ago) to nurse support/ training tutor (with enormous flexibility/ safety/ $30 an hour) for mobility and choice of location. I have never 'hated' any job I have had and I feel sorry for those who do. I would recommend volunteering to anyone who wants to try something new. I would never recommend volunteering for someone who promised to pay you fairly and has since shirked on the deal.

I had 15 employees at one stage and would sack any of them for bludging on my company time. I never had to, they worked very diligently and were paid as agreed/ they knew they were doing well so did not take advantage.

From my experience presenteeism is very much a public service or mega corp phenomenon, private and small enterprize cannot afford incompetent supervisors or employees.

The original idea of salaried positions was a 2 way fair commitment, it was never intended to support employers destroying their worker's quality of life by making them work major regular unpaid overtime.

[Newfie]

There are several conversations going on and points being made.

Seagypsy is talking about employer abuse.

CC is talking about the freedom to work.

My points are different that have to do with our NEED to work. I'll stick to my points, which are largely included in the Russel paper. There is also the concept of POTLATCH which has some interesting implications.

I think that this is an important issue because, IMHO, exploring the topic tells something about who we are as humans and what we need.

From a survival point of view we don't need to work nearly as much as we do to provide for our necessities of life. None-the-less we find that are busy as all get out. So that tells me there is something in our human makeup that requires us, on a personal level, to be doing something 'productive.' That only makes sense since for the vast majority of our species history we have had a relatively marginal existence. But the fact is that we really do not need to work as much as we do. In fact, I firmly believe that most jobs in this country are really some kind of make work project. The health insurance industry could go away in a heart beat with a single payer solution. But think of how many people we would put out of work. But, if there is a better, more efficient solution, and we don't take it, well then we are just digging and filling holes. There is 0% efficiency to that industry because there is a more efficient solution, we just choose to not use it.

CONSUMERISM is the economic response to our need to feel useful. We make all this useless crap that we collect but which does not improve our life. There is good research that says it in fact detracts from our enjoyment. Consciously or not Keynes understood the human need to produce and described consumerism and the surrounding economic theory in order to let this trait run. And run it has. However we are now seeing the consequences of giving in to our internal desires without looking to the future consequences.

To cut this short (too late) we as a country would be far better off is we did a wealth redistribution and stopped working and consuming.

Of course I think no such thing will happen. Still I think individuals can benefit from evaluating their relationship with work and how they conduct their lives so I beat on my drum.