If you can do 40 hours of work in a 20 hour period, shouldn't you get the rest of the week off?

[oiprocs]

Say you come in for 4 hours a day each week. In that 4 hours, you do as much work as someone else would do in 8 hours. (Or, you do as much work as could be reasonably expected in 8 hours).

Isn't it thus fair that you should get paid for a 40 hour week, but only have to work 20?

It doesn't make sense to have you sitting there wasting time for those other 4 hours. Now, of course the company wants you to be a workhorse and kick ass all day long. But if you realize that you can do 40 hours in 20, then you're just going to get intersperse your work between your neffing, browsing, etc.

 

[Deeko]

Yes, and I probably could if I wanted to.

 

[effowe]

It's not fair but that's how it is, you need to learn to work slower and less efficiently so that you can spread out your work like the others.

 

[Crono]

They'll bring you in to compensate for the less competent workers.

 

[MrChad]

There are two extremes in the workforce. You can do just enough work to not get fired, or you can try and do the work of 2 employees, get paid for the work of 1 and burn yourself out. The key is to strike a balance and manage the expectations of your supervisors.

 

[oiprocs]

Originally posted by: effowe
It's not fair but that's how it is, you need to learn to work slower and less efficiently so that you can spread out your work like the others.

Fail.

You're not the first to tell me this. My dad says it too. He says don't blaze through work, because there is an infinite supply of shit to get done. So slow down and take it easy.

I can't though. I'll get bored. Maybe I need a commission job.

 

[ggnl]

Many people who do assemply line or agriculture type work get paid piece rate, which is kind of the same as what you're talking about.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: scorpious
Say you come in for 4 hours a day each week. In that 4 hours, you do as much work as someone else would do in 8 hours. (Or, you do as much work as could be reasonably expected in 8 hours).

Isn't it thus fair that you should get paid for a 40 hour week, but only have to work 20?

It doesn't make sense to have you sitting there wasting time for those other 4 hours. Now, of course the company wants you to be a workhorse and kick ass all day long. But if you realize that you can do 40 hours in 20, then you're just going to get intersperse your work between your neffing, browsing, etc.

you are not being paid for 40 hours of work... you are being paid for 40 hours of time.
therefore you must do 80 hours worth of work...

 

[scott916]

If you can do 40 hours in 20, was it really 40 hours of work?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: scott916
If you can do 40 hours in 20, was it really 40 hours of work?

I was about to ask something similar. If you do "40 hours of work in 20 hours" doesn't that mean it was 20 hours of work?

 

[oiprocs]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: scott916
If you can do 40 hours in 20, was it really 40 hours of work?

I was about to ask something similar. If you do "40 hours of work in 20 hours" doesn't that mean it was 20 hours of work?

Well, I think you know what I mean, but I'll clarify.

Person A produces 10 correct *pieces* of work in 40 hours
Person B produces 10 correct *pieces* of work in 20 hours

 

[nageov3t]

the company is paying you for your time, unless you're working on commission or on a per-piece basis.

 

[slayer202]

guessing you are talking about an hourly wage kinda job. anyway, hopefully if you are getting stuff done twice as fast as the other people you will eventually get promoted.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: scorpious

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: scott916
If you can do 40 hours in 20, was it really 40 hours of work?

I was about to ask something similar. If you do "40 hours of work in 20 hours" doesn't that mean it was 20 hours of work?

Well, I think you know what I mean, but I'll clarify.

Person A produces 10 correct *pieces* of work in 40 hours
Person B produces 10 correct *pieces* of work in 20 hours

Person B produces 20 correct *pieces* of work in 40 hours.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: scorpious

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: scott916
If you can do 40 hours in 20, was it really 40 hours of work?

I was about to ask something similar. If you do "40 hours of work in 20 hours" doesn't that mean it was 20 hours of work?

Well, I think you know what I mean, but I'll clarify.

Person A produces 10 correct *pieces* of work in 40 hours
Person B produces 10 correct *pieces* of work in 20 hours

That means person A sucks (or you rock) and they should be fired since you can obviously do the work of both for half the cost.

OR

Person A figured out long ago that finishing early in the day leads to boredom so is actually better than you at pacing...

 

[SlitheryDee]

That's assuming that there's only 40 hours worth of work to do. If you're actually running out of stuff to do then yes. If there's still more work to do then you should be doing it regardless of how much you did before that. Of course if you're that good you should also be getting paid accordingly.

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: scott916
If you can do 40 hours in 20, was it really 40 hours of work?

I was about to ask something similar. If you do "40 hours of work in 20 hours" doesn't that mean it was 20 hours of work?

Yea it's all relative, the OP did state the case that he was doing it in 20 hours that it takes someone else to do in 40. So technically he's still only doing 20 hours of his own work but relatively he's doing 40 hours of someone elses.


This actually happened at my old job... I was being paid less than starting salaries of new hires who did less work and I had to train them too. They were idiots so I actually ended up doing more work fixing their mistakes which took more time than actually doing it correctly to begin with. In addition to a lot of other things that management did that I was not happy about, I resigned. They countered me to stay with an amount that as insulting and would'nt budge(because I resigned without a job lined up). Over the course of several months, they ended up hiring 4 people to replace me with a combined salary that's 3 times more than what they countered me with.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Personally I think of this as more of a mindset issue than anything else. There are really two types of people who can complete jobs successfully...

Person A - Finishes work assigned and doesn't care about anything else.
Person B - Finishes work assigned, has time to spare, asks other people if they need help, asks boss if work load can be increased.

I understand there are job variables where some level of B may not be possible but this is pretty much what I've found to be generally true.

And to counter a previous poster, if you really are that good you will be paid accordingly... when you get promoted and the other guy doesn't.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Personally I think of this as more of a mindset issue than anything else. There are really two types of people who can complete jobs successfully...

Person A - Finishes work assigned and doesn't care about anything else.
Person B - Finishes work assigned, has time to spare, asks other people if they need help, asks boss if work load can be increased.

I understand there are job variables where some level of B may not be possible but this is pretty much what I've found to be generally true.

And to counter a previous poster, if you really are that good you will be paid accordingly... when you get promoted and the other guy doesn't.

While this can sometimes be the case, it certainly isn't always the case. Often the person who gets promoted is the one who knows somebody, or they just hire someone from the outside instead of ever considering you.

Where my brother works, it's actually just the opposite: the people doing the least amount of work get the promotions. Those with less work to do can make elaborate presentations for their products, keep their desks clean all the time, and add extra finesse to their project, and it really impresses the managers. It doesn't matter that they do 1/4 the work of the rest of the department, none of whom have extra time to make the elaborate presentations.

And then you have the following example, which just makes me sick (it's a true story of someone close to me). He worked really hard to work his way up to a high management position. He would take a store from losing money to being one of the most successful in the area, and then they'd move him to another store to do the same. He worked about 70 hours per week for 10 years. Then one of his subordinates files a complaint about sexual harrassment from one of the other subordinates (not the manager). In order to cover themselves from a lawsuit, the company fires the general manager and makes all of the interviews and paperwork look like he allowed an ongoing hostile environment in the workplace, and it was his fault that the sexual harrassment took place.

In other words, sometimes it pays to work really hard, and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[gorcorps]

You're paid by time, not production. If you want to get paid by production then find a job that does that.

 

[BoomerD]

If you finish your work in 20 hours, shouldn't you only be paid for 20 hours?
Why should the company have to continue paying you if you're not working?



Besides, once you set your standard, you'll have to keep that level of production up...or get canned for slacking off.

 

[ivan2]

if your work is exempted, then it is possible for you to do that.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: kalrith

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Personally I think of this as more of a mindset issue than anything else. There are really two types of people who can complete jobs successfully...

Person A - Finishes work assigned and doesn't care about anything else.
Person B - Finishes work assigned, has time to spare, asks other people if they need help, asks boss if work load can be increased.

I understand there are job variables where some level of B may not be possible but this is pretty much what I've found to be generally true.

And to counter a previous poster, if you really are that good you will be paid accordingly... when you get promoted and the other guy doesn't.

While this can sometimes be the case, it certainly isn't always the case. Often the person who gets promoted is the one who knows somebody, or they just hire someone from the outside instead of ever considering you.

Where my brother works, it's actually just the opposite: the people doing the least amount of work get the promotions. Those with less work to do can make elaborate presentations for their products, keep their desks clean all the time, and add extra finesse to their project, and it really impresses the managers. It doesn't matter that they do 1/4 the work of the rest of the department, none of whom have extra time to make the elaborate presentations.

And then you have the following example, which just makes me sick (it's a true story of someone close to me). He worked really hard to work his way up to a high management position. He would take a store from losing money to being one of the most successful in the area, and then they'd move him to another store to do the same. He worked about 70 hours per week for 10 years. Then one of his subordinates files a complaint about sexual harrassment from one of the other subordinates (not the manager). In order to cover themselves from a lawsuit, the company fires the general manager and makes all of the interviews and paperwork look like he allowed an ongoing hostile environment in the workplace, and it was his fault that the sexual harrassment took place.

In other words, sometimes it pays to work really hard, and sometimes it doesn't.

Hell I'm a programmer and this is true.

The ones who kiss the most ass and glad hand the most end up being managers. The really good programmers end up working so much they forget to shave but are the ones pushing products out while everyone else is out drinking with their bosses and buttering them up for a raise.

Its just the way it is.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
If you finish your work in 20 hours, shouldn't you only be paid for 20 hours?
Why should the company have to continue paying you if you're not working?



Besides, once you set your standard, you'll have to keep that level of production up...or get canned for slacking off.

Exactly. Nothing good comes from busting ass. It isn't appreciated, it becomes expected, and you get hassled if it isn't kept up indefinitely. I'm not killing myself for any company. If they want a robot, they can pay to have one developed. As for me, I'll do what suits *my* interests best.

 

[BoomerD]

I went from a "hard-money" construction environment where every job was bid closely to working for a public utility as their crane operator.

For a couple of years, I was "GO-GO-GO! Let's get this shit done!"

Finally, after the crews kept complaining that I was working them too hard...and getting called into the boss's office and told "We get paid by the hour here...just take it easy," I finally did...sort of.

It never did set well with me, and I only lasted 7 years in a job that was supposed to be a life-long job till I retired.

The common attitude was "This work isn't bad...if we get done too quickly, the next job we get sent to might suck...just slow down and make it last." :roll: