1063
Millennials are exhausted by working more for less.
(www.theguardian.com)
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 05 Apr 2024
1063 points (97.5% liked)
Not The Onion
12210 readers
484 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This just puts a huge spotlight on the thing I hate the most about my line of work. I'm sure it's not just my line of work with this problem, but there's plenty of examples of workplaces that do not have this problem.
My career is in IT support. Whether doing systems administration or networking or something else related, it's my lifeblood.
Almost every job I've ever had in this field works on the basis of tickets. A concept which, isn't in and of itself a problem, nor is it unusual. Similar systems exist in many careers; they're similar to a chit in the restaurant industry, which contains an order, which is passed to the kitchen for the cooks/chefs to complete. Same thing. And there's examples of this same idea across many careers, called all kinds of things from a requisition, to a work order, they're all variations on the same idea.
The trouble begins with how tickets are worked and completed. In other industries, you pick up a task, whether a chit or work order, you finish the task, and you mark it as complete, but in IT, it's very different in one key way. We have to not only justify and report everything we do, but also mark down exactly how long it took. It's this last point that's the problem. I am under continual scrutiny, every minute of every day to justify what I've done, and when I did it. In every job I've had, my ability to fill every second of my day with records of what I've done and how long it took to do is praised, or the lack of that ability can create some significant issues with maintaining my employment status.
There are good reasons to keep these records, to have a record of changes, and coordinate with coworkers, in the event they need to continue work I've started, or vice versa, and to note when something changed so that if issues arise, those actions can be examined as a potential cause. But this requirement has become weaponized by every employer to keep a stranglehold on productivity. If you take too long on a task that they think should have taken less time, you're suddenly found in a meeting where you have to explain why you were so inefficient. If you excel and you're able to complete your tasks quickly, that faster pace becomes the new standard, and anyone who isn't capable of keeping up gets reprimanded for dragging their heels and wasting time.
The goal posts continually move. I can't so much as take an extended shit without someone taking notice.
Meanwhile, so many jobs are simply focused on being present and looking busy. Before I went into IT, I worked at a grocery store, and short of clearly and obviously standing around doing literally nothing, no manager even took notice of you. If you were doing something, literally anything that looks even remotely productive, you were left alone. Which isn't to mention all the down time, when there isn't anything to do, and you just go and adjust the products on the shelf needlessly because it made you look busy. That same concept can be applied to a lot of different jobs, but with IT, it's not sufficient to simply look busy. Your time must be put into a ticket.
It's oppressive and the way of things in IT.
The perpetual problem in IT
BOSS to you "If everything is working fine, what do I pay you for?"
Also BOSS to you "Things are broken, what am I paying you for?"
And the mentality you've described is extra bullshit in an IT or support role, as I'm sure you're aware.
This is paraphrased in the "Doom talk" I had to have with my boss back when I was working in systems maintenance. As in, he'd come into my office and complain, "Every time I come in here you're just playing Doom. You need to justify your salary or otherwise maybe we don't need to pay you."
What MBA's and PHB's don't realize is that IT and systems maintenance is not a production-oriented operation. You're not making widgets. The metric is not how many tickets do we generate and how fast are they solved. The metric is, how can we have as few tickets as possible? Because by and large what you're doing in support and IT is fixing stuff that's broken. The ideal state for the business to be in is not to have anything that's broken at all, on a minute-to-minute basis.
Boss, you want to see me in my office playing Doom. Because that means none of your millions and millions of dollars of mission critical infrastructure which your engineers rely upon to generate billable hours is on fire. If any of it catches fire today, I am on site to put it out. If anyone has a problem or a question, I am on call to solve it. If there is maintenance to be performed or new equipment to be rolled out, I'll be doing that. But otherwise I'm not going to invent busywork just to placate middle management which, as a whole, can't reliably remember which of the two mouse buttons to click.
Yep. I'm in the midst of that. We're in a "busy" season for my clients (mostly finance/accounting people), and I've reduced my output hours per day to a lower amount because I want to be more available for more time so that I can jump on critical issues as they arise. For the most part, you want to jump on critical things regardless of the situation, but right now it's more critical because of the busy season, so minor gripes get sidelined, all of my maintenance and other duties, like projects, scripting, etc, are all on hold, favoring time to resolution over almost everything else. So if I can be free more than normal so that I have the bandwidth to take care of things when they arise, so much the better. I don't want to be distracted writing a script when a critical ticket drops and I miss it by a few hours while the customers are unable to work because I was debugging a PowerShell function.
So my logged hours are down because I refuse to pick up dormant unimportant tasks while I'm idle. I use the time to review all tickets and just patrol the service tickets for critical issues. I have absolutely no reservations about doing it.
I agree, the goal should always be to play doom. Not because you ignore your work, but because there's nothing to do since everything works. IT support isn't here to justify their existence by staying busy. We're here so that when you need help, we can help. If there's nothing to do, then we're standing ready, and if we play doom, or Halo, or literally any other game/distraction/whatever, while we wait, as long as it doesn't impact our ability to respond when needed, then that's fine. That's what everyone should want. If the hardware is so unreliable that you're constantly having to work on it to keep it running, then, as IT, you fucked up.
I'll also mention that there's a paradox in IT: we're expected to do so much and if you just do all the work by hand, you'll be busy all the time. If you leverage scripts and scheduled tasks, you can significantly cut down on your workload. The paradox is that when you don't have those scripts and scheduled tasks, and you're doing everything by hand, you don't have enough time to create the scripts to reduce your workload.
I'll give an example. At a previous workplace, the bossman was very much in favor of doing things by hand, the original business model was T&M. He later moved to a more MSP model, where people are paying regardless of how much time was spent, so my focus shifted to automate everything and drop the ticket load as much as possible. In one such case, we kept getting issues related to a service failing. I don't recall what the issue was, nor what problem it created, but I remember that simply restarting the service fixed the problem. So instead of fielding dozens of tickets a year to restart the stupid service, I added a scheduled task to run a script that would restart the service automatically every week at (some godawful hour) AM, on a Sunday or something. Once that script was scheduled for weekly runs, we stopped getting those tickets.
I have dozens of other examples along the same lines. One of my most proud moments was a script to fix a service where, if another service was running before it, the service wouldn't load properly. The program service just wouldn't start if a system service was running. It was a non-critical system service, but both had to be running after boot time. I had already tried every combination of delayed start, and every time, the program service would fall because the system service ended up running too quickly. So I made a script to shut down the system service, start the program service, and then restart the system service, and scheduled it to run 15 minutes after boot, anytime the system restarted (usually overnight for patching). Once that was in place, complaints of (program) not working after patch day, went away.
I hate repeating process because nobody thought to actually fix the problem, they just patched it back together manually. When faced with a reoccurring problem, I look at how I can stop it from happening; of course I fix it in the short term but as soon as I'm done I'm working on a script that can do it for me, then figuring out the best way to trigger the script so that I don't have to be involved.
No matter how busy you are, finding a way to get rid of problems like that, by any means necessary, is essential; otherwise, you'll be drowning in tasks to fix stuff that shouldn't be broken.
Yeah, firefighter mentalities are terrible.
That said, as someone in software development, wouldn't there be some optimization work you could do? Keeping up with the technology? Preparing training material? Figuring out the next steps for the next improvements to be done to the system? Looking at solutions to better monitor what is going on? Scripts to automate tasks?
I find it hard to believe that things are so static.
Absolutely! Those things are known to management as, variously, "wasting time," "spending all day surfing the internet," "submitting frivolous RFQ's," and heaven forbid if you want to attend training or a trade show, "accruing unnecessary travel expenses."
Improvements/Maintenance is no ones KPI. I'm kind of baffled by this.
you made the criminal mistake of this not being a ticketed item, and for that, you get banished to hell
I feel you fellow IT brother/sister!
The IT world is chock-full of this garbage, and all it really forces people to do is A. Provide lesser service so that it "takes longer", inflating their time metrics, and B. Causes people to make shit up, or submit their own BS tickets to make it look like they're doing stuff to justify their existence.
Ultimately holding people to a metric-based system like this leads to worse service, and make people hate their jobs.
The job I had before my current one, I was site lead for Field Services. Luckily we were sort of a start up/experimental program, so the technician metrics weren't tracked at all. MAN it was nice. Nobody felt stressed out needing to justify every second of their day, they wound up doing the work in an appropriate amount of time because it didn't matter how long an individual took (be that long, or short). We only had an SLA to meet for the customer, which was easily hit.
I even took it a step further and didn't really pay much heed to the corporate timekeeping rules... If someone needed to run an errand or "telework" for a day; fine by me. The company didn't give anyone sick time, or enough time in general, OR a big enough salary, so they can eat my whole ass. Lo and behold, our section had the lowest MTTR, and highest amount of tickets closed, all with 100% SLA met. Crazy what you can achieve when you treat people like adults and actual human beings instead of soulless automatons.
Agreed. The time wasted just marking down what you did and how long it took you is incredible. If I get too busy, I look like a fucking slacker because the first thing I just cannot do when I'm too busy is to mark down exactly how busy I am. It just doesn't happen. I'm moving from one task to the next so fast that I barely have time to take a drink, nevermind write a short story about how I did a thing and figure out exactly when I started working on something.
Compounding this, when it's that busy, I'm often flip flopping between tasks, while I wait for a program to install or a file to copy or something, I'm off trying to chip away at something else. When it's slow, I can take a minute while thing copy/load/whatever, and update my notes. My tasks occur sequentially, so it's easy to see, I started on this at 9:30 and working on this and only this until 10:45. Meanwhile when it's busy, I did X from 9:30 to 9:48, then Y from 9:48 to 9:56, then X again from 9:56 to 10:10, then Y from 10:10 until 10:18, then I finish X from 10:10 to 10:45, and finished Y from 10:45 to 11:05.... Yeah, I'm not entering all that time... At best I'm going to guess, at worst I'm just going to not enter anything. Closed/resolved. Worked for unknown time, text entry: "fixed problem" done.
The task of entering time takes more time to do. If I'm too busy trying to put out fires, I don't care what the time sheet says, I care that the fires were put out as quickly as possible. So I look like I did nothing, but I damn near lost my mind trying to get it all done.
This was a major problem at my last job. Not only would I be so busy, jumping from one foot to the other trying to put it fires, but people would continually walk over to my desk and bug me about unrelated crap. 90% of the time they were managers or senior staff whom I couldn't just ignore, or tell them to go away. So now I'm not putting out a fire instead I'm taking to Sally, who is the daughter of the owner, about her stupid Excel issue that she can, has, and could continue to work around, but she wants it to work in a different way that she never learned how to do from the cut rate community college during the business course she took.
I dunno Sally, why don't you fucking Google it? I'm not your personal chat GPT of problem solving shit that's not broken. I'm currently trying to solve a problem that affects hundreds of people, and this issue barely affects one. Can you go away and stop distracting me? But nooooo. If I tell Sally to go away, daddy bossman will hear about it and I'll get pulled into yet another pointless meeting about my "attitude" towards staff, that will only put me further behind on fixing contoso corp's file server, which is preventing them from doing millions of dollars in business today alone. Apparently Sally's feelings are more important until contoso corp changes IT providers because we couldn't meet our SLA with them, which will also be my fault because I'm lead technician on that account.
Fuck.
That sounds like hell.
Then there's the IT support team I have to design systems for in my org that are COMPLETELY useless. They can't be bothered to do their job, and escalate tickets randomly to Tier 3 without any triage, documentation, or careI wish their management would put even a semblance of accountability on them.
I think a middle ground would be fantastic for everyone.
Level 1 support teams are universally useless. I think I've ever worked with one that's actually effective.
Can you imagine that in a hospital? "Oh this guy came in with a broken finger, I'd better call the lead surgeon." Now of course the lead surgeon can fix it, of course they can, everyone can fix it, but you can't send the patient back down to accident and emergency because then you get complaints about why you're passing this poor guy around.
The IT cycle of violence.
Ain't that the truth
Mechanics at your local car dealer likely get paid on flat rate. That means they get paid a set amount of hours based on the time estimate for the job, regardless of how long it takes. Also, manufacturers set lower times for warranty repairs than you would get paid if the customer had to pay. Also, if there is no book time, you have to guess ahead of time. If the vehicle comes back, you have to work on it for free. You also get service writers and managers breathing down your neck while you're trying to troubleshoot and not understanding how long things take and also pressuring you to upsell unnecessary services and repairs. Anyway, I don't work on cars anymore.
I write software for car dealerships so have been aware of all of what you said by proxy for some time simply by virtue of having to write time tracking code which handles all that.
It's insane.
I understand why. I have had a bit of insight into how all of that works and short of being a prodigy, you can't really get ahead.
This is why I do a lot of my routine maintenance on my own car. If all I need is a wrench, some materials and a few hours, I'll do it myself. I've become quite skilled with mechanics over the years; I'm sure it's nothing compared to what an actual mechanic knows, but brakes, tire changes/rotations, battery replacements, even coolant changes and thermostat replacements, totally do-able. I could go on with minor repair crap I've learned but you get the picture.
I did a brake job on my SIL's car and discovered that the last person in there didn't lube anything up, I had to beat it with a hammer to get the damn brake pads out. I put the right lubrication in the right places and put everything back together better than I found it. I even did the slide bolts, which I had to break out the torch to get loose. New pads, rotors, slide bolts, slide bolt boots, the whole nine yards. Pretty much everything short of doing the calipers and brake fluid.
I suspect the last few techs that touched her vehicle were trying to move so fast that they didn't bother doing anything to the side bolts even though they would have been obviously in need of maintenance/replacement.
The thing that bothered me is that she sold the car a few months after I spent 10+ hours fixing the stupid brakes. So next time I have to go look at her vehicle, it'll be a surprise for what things were not done, or were not done right.
grumbles
In order to avoid that kind of situation many shops will simply quote a "loaded caliper" for each side. It includes the caliper, hardware, brake pads, and bracket. You simply disconnect the brake hose and take out two bolts that hold the caliper bracket on. Give the rotor a couple of slams from the hammer, clean up the hub, reassemble everything and bleed the brakes. It might cost $600, but it saved a ton of time for the shop and prevents a comeback when the old caliper decides to get stuck anyway.
Yeah, she needed it on all four. I think I needed to torch out at least three of the slide bolts around the car. We saved a bunch of money by having me do it, but I broke my cheap torque wrench in the process, snapped the socket connector right off the end of it trying to loosen the lug nuts. I only used the torque wrench for loosening things because I didn't have another tool long enough to pull them off (aka a breaker bar, I think it's called). So, RIP. I told her that if she wants me to do another wheel/brake service, she'll have to buy me an impact wrench, and I'll send her the link to one I found that will fill the purpose (which is both compatible with the stuff I already use and was tested and recommended by the torque test YouTube channel). Because I'm not dealing with getting, and breaking, any tools to get her tires off because some crackpot at the shop decided to torque her lug nuts with an impact.
I only want to reduce my workload and not sit there standing on a breaker bar, unable to get the damn lug nuts off... I'm not light, over 200lbs, so if I need to stand on a bar to get the lug nuts to loosen, someone probably did something wrong.
Never again.
I have one of those "compatible with" Milwaukee impacts and it works great for most things. I also have a couple of really cheap 1/2" breaker bars that I bought years ago that just won't break. I have a 3' cheater bar that fits over them and I've had to put some weight into that a time or two.
This is the way.
The impact wrench I'm looking at is one of the newer lineup from DeWalt. I have DeWalt everything already (impact driver, hammer drill, circular saw, reciprocating saw... Even my hedge trimmer, string trimmer, lawnmower and snowblower), all using the 20v MAX or compatible batteries, except the snowblower, which uses the power flex 60v (which can be used in 20v tools, but 20v MAX batteries cannot be used in it). The impact wrench uses the same 20v batteries. So I just need the tool. It's still something like $200 for it, but I don't think I'll need anything more for power tools for a long assed time after that.
We picked most of this stuff up over the past year starting with a kit (impact driver, hammer drill, circular/reciprocating saws, even a small light, with some batteries and a few extras) about a year and a half ago, and we've been steadily adding to it. I chose DeWalt because I have an old, 12v drill I used for like 10 years and it still works. The original battery has left us but the second battery I bought when it was new (it came with one and I bought an extra so I could have one in the drill while one was charging) is still kicking. I got a replacement for the original battery that shipped with it, so I still have two for that unit. It still works, and it's fine, but there were a few times I really needed a hammer drill and the puny 12v was all that I had... But that was literally my only real gripe about it. Given that history, I wanted to keep with DeWalt because they clearly make tools that can last.
I wanted to go with one brand so I didn't require several different battery chargers for different tools. DeWalt was only missing a snowblower, but they released one late last year and we obtained it shortly after it hit the market, which completed our large tools. There's only a small number of handheld tools in the DeWalt lineup that I still want to get. The impact wrench is one. Another is a brad nailer (IIRC), because I have to install some baseboards/trim, but it's hard to justify buying a $500+ tool for the job.
My entire automotive kit probably needs to be replaced. I have a complete socket set with ratcheting wrenches, and not a whole lot besides that at the moment. I will need to get a new torque wrench, breaker bar... Probably a lot more that I'm not thinking about right now. I have access to my brother's Jack and Jack stands, so I'm ok there. For the impact wrench, I'll need to add a small set of impact ready sockets for it, otherwise I'm going to rip my sockets to shreds.
I have a ton of electrical testing stuff for my other hobbies, so I'm good on that front, but I notably don't have a CCA tester, which I would like to get. Among my more electronic things I have a fairly crappy, and old, OBD2 reader, which has come in handy plenty of times.
As you can imagine, I'm the "handy" guy in the family. I just find it all fascinating, but I wouldn't want to make it my job. After working on a vehicle for a few days, I don't even want to look at a wrench for several weeks.
By day, I work in IT, so I'm generally sat at a computer pushing buttons until the screen dots show up in the right order.
I have several socket sets and wrenches from harbor freight that are perfectly fine. The 1/4" set, the open ended ratchet set, the short impact set, and the long metric wrenches, these cover 99% of everything. If you don't abuse your tools, then they won't break. I even have a second 1/4" set from Aldi of all places and never had an issue with it. I'm not using them all day every day, so I'm not that worried about buying expensive stuff.
The point is never expensive. The point is always that it lasts. Sometimes that means more expensive, but not always.
DeWalt is a special case, because no matter what we buy for wireless tools, it's going to need batteries and the batteries are not cross compatible. So that's more about total cost of ownership. My TCO goes down if I stay within their battery ecosystem.
I'll have a look around for cheap-but-good impact sockets when the time comes. I'm not in a position to need them quite yet.
Opposite scenario in my dept. The boss wants to improve our time tracking so he can justify asking for more staff.
"Yes the rest of the org needs 500 new starters a week but you guys can manage, right?"
Yeah, they say that.
When you're too busy to actually get your time in and you look like a damn slacker, they'll use it as evidence to say that you don't need any additional help. I've been through this song and dance several times.
The problem is your boss. I work with tickets and just have a maximum for the average amount of time to be under for the quarter. It's very relaxing.
You need to explain to your boss that different tasks take different amounts of time. Explain that you may be able to do things faster at the risk of larger issues taking up more time later. Then when they tell you to work faster, reiterate that it will cause bigger issues.
Literally give them what they want: fast solutions at the expense of quality. Then don't worry about it when things eventually break.
You're not wrong, but the problem with this is that the worker will be blamed for the bad quality, not the manager.
In fact, it'll be the manager rating the worker poorly because of the quality at review time, and they just won't care or won't connect the fact that the worker is not being given enough time to have a level of quality that would be acceptable to the manager.
That's not how reality works. If your goals are time-based and you hit your goal, then you did a good job. Quality is different. It's the managers job to balance speed and quality.
You just say "I achieved my time limit for tickets" and leave it at that. If they give you incompatible goals, that's the manager's fault. Just tell them it's not possible to do a good job quickly.
I'm not talking about the literal who's right or who's wrong/fault, I'm talking about the politics, about who has the power, who doesn't, and who can get away with mistakes by putting the mistakes on others.
I've literally seen what I've described happen, on multiple occasions, throughout my career. /shrug
Literally every boss I've had has been like this. I don't think there's a whole lot of IT jobs that aren't at this point. I've worked several and if they're not call centers (a few have been - where call time is factored in), this has been the primary time system, required by all employees.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I think the issues that you mentioned are becoming increasingly prevalent in other lines of work as well. I do not work in IT, but really resonated with what you mentioned about documentation/reporting requirements being weaponized by upper management to increase "productivity" regardless of the cost (namely, quality of the work performed). I wholeheartedly agree that this environment is toxic, oppressive, and unsustainable.
probably an account of the being in meetings questioning me about my efficiency, which proceed to then lower my efficiency, which then proceeds to spawn more meetings, and then proceeds to lower my efficiency even more.
Seems rather obvious to me.
There are times I've worried about not having kids, but comments like this help me feel good about my decision. Why would I want to put someone I love through this? (Or anyone, for that matter)
i'm often sorry i had kids - not for myself, because i love them, but for them.
i'm glad they're not interested in having their own kids, and i hope they are able to stick with it. and hopefully none of them/their partners ever needs an abortion.
This is exactly why I'm opposed to bringing kids into the world.... I mean, have you looked at the world? It sucks. Why would I want to condemn another individual, whom I'm sure I will love wholeheartedly, to suffer through all of this for their entire life?
I didn't have any say in being born and if I had even an impression of what I was in for, I probably would have said no thanks.
The only thing I'm thankful for from my parents is that they took care of me for so long. I'm not thankful that I'm alive and I'm not thankful for being born. That said, I'm also doing my damnedest to be a force for good in the world. I'm not making a significant impact, because I'm just one guy working a menial job, but I'm going my best. If I must continue to be alive, I might as well try to make everything suck a little less.
I am still in my first job as a B2B tech and thought this was something only my workplace did, was scrutinise ticket time.
I continue to find it hard there because I legitimately don't slack but gaps end up between my time records (its hard to continuously work 4 hours at a time with zero downtime) and the boss comes down saying his KPI of ticket time / worked time teamwide keeps going down, and like you say the goalposts keep shifting.
I even went to the trouble of making my own time tracker that gave me even more information about my time entries and what was left for the day and how much I was out, way more info than what PSA gives you, but then got scared of continuing to work on it as the goalposts shifted again to billable time entries / worked time, and doing a time tracker isn't billable to a client.
My advice: fib.
Not really, but yes. Fib. Lie. Put down what you think is appropriate. Don't exaggerate, don't over bill, just adjust for what fits.
For me, I refuse to track my time down to the minute. I realized that if I put in 5 minutes for sending an email, I would get credit for 0.08 of an hour, but, 5 minutes is actually 0.083333... of an hour. So I started putting in 6 minutes instead (0.10 of an hour). Rather than be irrationally docked the 20 seconds or so, I'm getting a whole ass extra 0.02h (or rather 0.1666.... of an hour).
I'll do 6 minutes, or anything in 15 minute increments. If it took 7 minutes, that's 15m. If it took 20, that's 30m on the record. If I'm looking for a ticket, or closing a ticket (after my time is entered), or even if I go to take a shit while working on a ticket, that goes in the time entry. I might be in the bathroom, but my brain is working on the problem. I'm not exactly taking a break from working the issue, I'm just trying to brain storm while I'm away from my keyboard.
Every second from the time I start looking for a ticket to work, to the time I've closed it, should be on the books. I didn't work from 9:35 to 9:56 on anything, I spent 9:30 to 9:35 finding, and opening the ticket prior to my time entry being started. I spent 9:56 to 10:00 closing the ticket and mentally preparing myself for the next task. Minute by minute tracking is unreasonable, and bluntly, you shouldn't do it. You'll lose more time from what I call "grey time" (doing all the things you need to do in order to account for your time), than you account for actually doing your job. Reading email, looking at documents and keeping up to date on technology issues.... All of that is grey time.
I've put in time for internal meetings, "ticket review"s, even "reading email". None of which has every been questioned. You need that time to simply keep yourself organized. Don't hesitate to mark it down and bill it to your own employer. I know they don't want you to do that, it "artificially inflates" your worked time, but bluntly, if they're going to require that you account for so much of your day that you can't have grey time anywhere in there, you're doing yourself a disservice by not adding some kind of entry to account for it.
The only thing I strictly do not do, is mark down my time for lunch and breaks. That's not acceptable to me. Everything else, sure. But I'm going to pad it to account for my grey time. When I spend too much time doing stuff that I consider grey time, I'll put in an internal entry for it, and bill my employer. I try to keep these to a minimum, but it's an easy entry when you get called into a meeting or something.
Once you start seeing all the losses from grey time adding up, you'll be able to account for 6-7 hours of your day easily. Plus 30 minutes for lunch, and 2x15 minute breaks, and you're missing an hour of your day at most.
Grey time. Log it.