The work week should be increased to more than 40 hours, or eliminated
The work week should remain at 40 hours
The work week should be reduced to 36-39 hours
The work week should be reduced to 32-35 hours
The work week should be reduced to less than 32 hours
Ya know... I hate to admit it but you're not far wrong.
My employer was bought out by a national-size corporation about four years ago. Since then paperwork has quadrupled; the proliferation of petty little rules about a gazillion insignificant issues have snowballed; electronic spying devices have been installed to keep track of all employee activities, and the slightest deviation from schedule brings down the wrath of Thor before they even check to see if it was actually justified or necessary. They give us zero trust. You can be a 1st rate worker who is NEVER in trouble, and if you put one foot wrong you get ZERO slack despite a sterling work record.
In short, they treat us like they hate us, and frankly we hate them right back. They cut corners, they're stingy with the pay and raises, they expect us to perform 2x work with half-ass equipment and inadequate admin support, and it sucks.
I'd like to go work somewhere else but the economy is bad, and from what I hear from other people this isn't just my employer, it's a common trend.
(BTW, I have run a business. Two of them. One I owned; I got squeezed out of biz by the big franchises. The other I was a manger and gave it up because my employer wanted me to be dishonest.)
Last edited by Goshin; 02-28-11 at 08:34 PM.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
Let see if I can get this straight in my mind, you suggest lowering the work week so more people can be employed, knowing full well, this goes with only the middle class on down?
Problem with what you are saying is the simple math of it. Lets say you go to the lowest end of your reduction 32 hour work weeks.
In very simple math you are going to cut the wages of 4 families, to increase the wages of one.
I'm going to use far better wages then the rest here, lets say people working are making $20 per hour, or $800 per week, now those four families are cut back 8 hours, they are now making $640 a week.
You've just cut the wages of 4 families, 20% to give one family a job paying $640 a week.
I”m sorry, I just don't see the economics of pulling down 4 families to help one. Putting that same amount of effort into creating jobs, would be a much better idea.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Then they went corporate. All the little perks were gradually cut back and eliminated. Merit raises no longer exist, now you get a bare bones cost of living raise no matter how good or poor your performance is. The company has put in place more "policies" that regulate some of the stupidest and most minute details of the day. Salaried workers are expected to put more and more time in for no additional compensation.
And what's the result? The turn over rate is much higher, meaning the comany has to spend additional dollars training the new hires that are constantly replacing the ones who leave. And those new, raw employees are not nearly as efficient at getting work done as the people they are replacing. Plus many of the workers who are there now have a much lower morale and avoid doing anything extra or above and beyond because they know two things. One, they won't be rewarded in any fashion for their extra effort. Two, the company will start to expect teh extra effort and make it part of their jobs without adding compensation for the additonal responsibilities. People cut corners and do the minimum because they feel the company is the enemy. Where as before the company had a real family feel and many of the employees were very dedicated.
If you treat your employees like crap, the best you can expect is a minimal effort. Too many companies, especailly corporate ones, lose sight of this very basic fact.
Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.
Treating men as men, handling people is an unknown; workers are machines...
sad, and this happens all too often.
And, until these powers that are have a major attitude change, they cannot learn nor improve.
The only time I had a work week shorter than 40 hours is when I was getting paid for 24, but I was working about 60, at times sleeping on the floor because it was too late to drive home. I was smart though, I re-negotiated for 40 plus OT. A couple of paychecks got their attention. The result was: If I didnít improve my attitude they would fire me. I got to finish my BS.
All my subsequent jobs were 40 hours/week but salaried no OT; which required about 50 hours a week average.
My guess is that 50 to 60 hrs/week is the lowest cost for the employer. SoÖ.
Then the trade deficits must stop , no more endless stream of money from our nation to Arabia, the Orient, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, now Mexico.
Having more people working with shorter hours will be more fair, but this is not the bottom line answer.