758
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
758 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59340 readers
2302 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The article also quotes
As if people working two jobs are stealing and not working in exchange for proper value of money.
It's because the system is designed to keep us paid just enough to live and keep buying from companies, but not enough to have true independence. Working two jobs is cheating that system by giving you more money and freedom than they want you to have. Once you have financial security you can start to wonder about how fucked up this "system" truly is.
Except they're not even paying us enough to live anymore
Do you really think anyone out there actually wants you to not have more? Doesn’t seem to me that anyone cares. I think the concern is that you will perform your job halfway, not that you will become too solvent. Having more money to spend is always good for the capitalists. Hurting productivity is the fear (whether right or wrong).
It really should depend on the role. If part of your job is being available for inbound requests, or participating in group work of some kind, it seems reasonable to expect that during the business day you will be available and not randomly tied up with other commitments. It would be hard to have two such jobs.
If it’s a task completion kind of job then it shouldn’t matter exactly when the tasks get done as long as they get done.
But you should be able to have one “high availablility” job and one “task completion” job at the same time because your tasks can always be set aside if you are needed. Or two task completion jobs, for the same reason.
In all events, the point is being able to perform your job without undue obstacles. If you can do that, and you’re meeting the goals and criteria set for you, nothing else should matter.
I don't follow. If you're claiming you're putting 40 hours of work in a week, or that is what your contract says, and you're really only doing 20 because you're splitting it between two jobs...isn't that obviously cheating the system?
Don't get me wrong, I don't give a shit if people take advantage of a corporation to milk it for cash, but it seems to me to be pretty clearly cheating the system. If you want to get paid on what you produce, and not the time you put in, then you should structure your contracts that I way. I know a lot of my side work I don't bill hourly precisely because I know it can be done quickly ( for me with experience) but it's worth more to them.
If you're salaried, you're not usually obligated to work a certain number of hours, you're just obligated to complete tasks on time. If someone holds two salaried positions and works fast enough that they get all obligations for both completed in 40 hours a week, they're not cheating anyone.
I manage a decent sized team of salaried people and I am 100% behind this.
If I were to have a criticism it would be of management hiring more people than they really need, not paying good wages, and/or not recognizing when one of their people is ready for a bigger role.
It’s never happened on my team that I know of, but if I were to run into that case and my guy was getting his job done properly then zero fucks would be given.
Do all of your team members finish their work at the same time, or are some slower than others? Do some require more help than others, or take up more than your time managing? Do you just fire the worst performing ones? Does anything change if you find out that the worst performing person has another job he's doing during the same hours he's working for you and maybe that's why he's performing under his peers?
A lot of companies I've worked at have been the opposite 😅 management making do with less by making people work harder to the point of burnout is not very helpful.
Agreed on management not recognizing when one of their people is ready for a bigger role, it's even worse when the person is performing that role and has expectations of that role but doesn't have the title or salary bump to show for it.
Oh definitely lots of places under hire, that wasn’t really what I was getting at. I meant if someone is in a full time role at a job and has enough free time to take a whole as other job without any apparent impact on his output, odds are good they have a lot more people on the team than they really need and a good proportion of people’s time gets spent on the illusion of work getting done more so than the substance.
Ive worked many salaried jobs in my life. I've never seen a work contract that simply defines your tasks you have to get done. Not saying that it doesn't happen, but I would be hard pressed to believe it's common. I don't even know how you would do that because what tasks I do always shifts, especially in tech. On top of that, how long a task takes is extremely unpredictable. Sometimes I fly through something, sometimes that last 10% takes 90% of the time.
*edit: contract work is very common and definitionally does not define 'time on the job', and instead lays out specific metrics of performance related to production. Salaried work is definitely far more common, but to say that's unusual or impossible is just wrong.
I think this helps elucidate the real issue here, which is the distinction between selling labor and selling your time. One of those is obviously more reasonable and the other shares a conceptual relationship with other types of indentured labor.
It used to be that the distinction didn't matter since you had to be in a particular place to do a particular work anyway, selling your labor and selling your time looked basically the same and your employer could control and manage how you spent that time. But with remote work, the employer no longer has control over managing your time because they have no (reasonable) way to monitor your production; an employer utilizing monitoring software would (rightly) be seen as an abuse and invasion of privacy. So even though the contract hasn't changed, people are more aware of how dehumanizing it is not to have sold their labor but control over a certain number of hours of their life.
I obviously have bias here, but I think defining labor by its measure of time is alienating and inhumane.
it definitely happens.
My point is more that salaried employees, by definition, are not required to put in a certain amount of hours. That would make them hourly employees. All salaried employees are required to do is to complete their work by a deadline. What that work is and what the deadline is are usually not defined specifically in their contract, because as you said, both those things constantly change, so it would be impossible to reflect that in some binding agreement.
It's less about contractual and legalities and more about the feel of the workplace. A lot of places, especially remote jobs, are more laid-back and open-minded than traditional 9-to-5 ass-in-seats old fashioned office jobs.
This is how it works where I live from a legal point of view too. If you "show up" (in-person or remote doesn't matter) to your full-time job and are "available" for work but they don't have enough for you, legally you must be paid for your full number of hours (your entire salary). You are paid for your time, not your results. You keep your job by delivering good results, however, since that's a different matter.
Not sure why you're down voted but you are right.
I get paid to do 40 hours of work a week and I feel like I'm cheating the system as I definitely don't work anywhere close to that.
I think people just are comfortable screwing over companies as they will screw you as often as they can so they don't see it as cheating in this case, but it's a rare case where the worker gets more out of it than the business.
why do you assume they don’t work their full hours?
https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-average-worker-is-productive-for-this-many-hours.html
Office workers are productive on average about 3 hours out of an 8 hour workday.
Not sure how that's an argument that it's ok to have two jobs. If people can only concentrate on work for 3 out of 8 hours, where are they getting the concentration for another job? More likely that 3 hours get divided to 1.5 to each.
Mainly because I'm not naive, but more concretely because i have followed this movement because it interested me when I wanted to make more money.
But even if we want to pretend that all of these people are actually working 80 hour weeks, the article talks about juggling zoom meetings and falls, so it's clearly talking about some kind of deception at least as to when you are working.
It really depends on the job. For example, security guards need to be present AND vigilant. It’s not reasonable for them to be fooling with spreadsheets on their phone or something. However, a spreadsheet worker is not technically required to sit in their chair 40 hours. They need to get a certain amount of work done. Who cares when they do it? The rub comes when some people think that the spreadsheet job is mandated 40 hours in the chair but it really isn’t. That’s not in the papers you signed. It’s just a “soft expectation” or assumption that management had. If you are completing all the work expected of you during a day, it shouldn’t matter if it took you a full 8 hours or not.
Having said that, someone who only completes what’s given and never contributes extra on their own initiative, or looks for additional ways to be helpful, is not going to be as appreciated. They might not get promoted as fast. But that’s different than cheating.