Not once, bar my days back at the police department, have I ever had a job where I actually worked more than 50% of the time. And it was not due to laziness or sloth on my part, as much as it was management was unable to manage the company's resources efficiently to produce enough work to keep me occupied 40 hours a week.
This I surmise is the case for the majority of American workers and thus we have to learn the art of "looking busy" constantly having an Excel spreadsheet up we can alt-tab to if we sense a superior nearby. But it got me thinking, "how could a company waste up to 20 hours each week on each employee? Wouldn't they like to have their savings or at least get 40 hours of work out of them?"
And then I further thought, "how many people would willingly take a pay cut by switching from salary to hourly if it meant they could go home when they have no work to do."
It was these two revelations I had that led me to conclude that someday, maybe not in my lifetime, the traditional 9-5, 40 hours a week employee will cease to exist as we know it. The costs savings and efficiency gains are too tempting to companies and the lure of freedom from work instead of having to have your mind melt while checking e-mail for the 90th time that day is just as tempting to workers. Companies could cut down on their health care costs, and I think employees would be just fine with that if it meant they could go fishing or spend more time with their kids. I don't even think workers would have to suffer that much in less pay as if they agree to forfeit health care to have the same pay but only work 20 hours a week
Thus, there will be no employees, just contractors.
Then again, I could be wrong. Corporate America, as I've surmised before, is in it more for power than anything approaching progress or profitability. And daring to let people have the freedom to go home if they're efficient and do their job faster than others is near blasphemy. Oh well, another brilliant idea doomed to failure on account of maintaining the status quo.
Didn't have work to do? That sounds like the failing of both the company and the employee (in this case, you). I can't imagine working somewhere where there was truly nothing one could do but twiddle their thumbs.
ReplyDeleteThere is always another call that could be made or email sent. At least something could be cleaned up around the place.
For example, if the owner of the company was in your shoes, don't you think they'd find something to do?
By the way, if you want to see what you're proposing taken to the extreme, check out mturk.com Get paid by the task as little as one penny at a time.
Even for those with 40 hours, try getting management to agree to, say, work 10 hours a day for 4 days.
ReplyDeleteOr any other flexibility.
Though you bring up another point that amazes me.
Where are you working that 50% is the maxiumum you worked?!
Everywhere I've worked since I started working, a 40 hours 9-5 week would have been a holiday schedule - (ok, "uncommonly light & predictable")
Now, admittedly I have spent some of that time doing other things than working for the company (certain things _have_ to be done during business hours). But not near 50%. And contractors also spend some time working on "stuff" that isn't STRICLY _work_ work - even the honest ones.
Ed and Anon,
ReplyDeleteI will admit, and I admit this not in arrogance or brovado, but I am typically more efficient than the average worker.
that being said, I can easily find you scores of jobs in banking where they literally hire 3 people to do one job. I'm not saying it for effect or for shock value, but it is true (and perhaps maybe my field is more prone to such waste), I've rarely been occupied or in the classical sense "employed" more than 50% of my time.
This could of course be the way the old school boys set it up, and I'm just being a dumbass and not "getting it," as if it were a privilage to work such minimal hours in banking. That being said, and i think you'll find this true amongst your white collar colleagues, they aren't really working more than 50% of the time.
I'm looking to hire only "virtual" employees for my business. Pay only for what you need, and even at a significantly higher hourly rate the total annual savings can be significant. One big problem is training for business-specific tasks.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget that people adjust to their surrounding environment. They realize that they don't have enough work to do, so they "stretch" it (i.e., they are working slower to fill up their time in office).
ReplyDeleteI've seen people who said that they have so much to work, but you quickly realize that they are just working too slow.
Imagine what would happen to GDP when employers would give incentives for working faster...
dtrum, salespeople and entrepreneurs are certainly rewarded for their productivity.
ReplyDeleteFaster may = better if you're doing routine tasks, but it's tougher to measure to the productivity of other types of work. Those who figure out how to measure productivity rather than time or speed will see more success.
I have the opposite problem - I work way too many hours along with a frantic work pace because I work for an anorexic corporation run by greedy bastards.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, due to unreasonable headcount cuts, I work around 55 hours per week just trying to do essentials.
Of course I'm salaried, so all that OT gets me is the sincere appreciation of the company - NOT!
I have no backup or backfill - nobody else can do 95% of what I do, there is no time to train a backup - they don't have time to learn and I don't have time to teach them.
All these reductions in staff and offshoring to (incompetent) global resources has been driven directly from the CEOs office - the strategy is to cut costs for the short term to raise executive compensation, then jump ship when the CEO retires, leaving the next CEO to deal with the problems the predecessor created.
I'd love to have a 40 hour week with the same salary I earn now.
I'm very tempted to limit my work to 45 hours a week, and let things screw up, crash, break or not get done. I see no reason why I should continue to work so many hours to keep the business running, while keeping the executives from reaping the natural consequences of their poor decisions.
Suck eggs, Sam.
Read the book "It's called Work for a Reason," by Larry Winget.
ReplyDeleteYou'll love it. If I owned a business, I'd give a free copy to every employee.
It should be mandatory issue for every government employee.
"Even for those with 40 hours, try getting management to agree to, say, work 10 hours a day for 4 days."
ReplyDeleteI recently switched over to this. I get Wednesdays off, and it's nice never having to work more than two days in a row.
As for my time actually spent working, it's about 70%. But then, since I'm basically just on hand to fix stuff when it breaks, my time spent working is largely a function of events outside of my control anyway.