Originally posted by: Arkitech
I totally agree with you, the amount of time it takes to commute these days is equivalent to working a part time job. I've never been able to understand why these corporations don't offer more part time positions. Every year I hear about these companies laying off thousands of people and in some cases those people really did'nt have 8 hours of work to be busy with. So it seems to me it would be more economically feasible for corp america to embrace more part time opportunties and it would also be a great way for employees to continue their careers and still have enough time to enjoy a life outside of the job.
You definitely do not want what you think you want. More part-time job offerings means lower salaries and stingier benefits. Corporate America is moving more toward part-time positions and that's bad because you can't live off of the compensation these jobs offer.
The real problem, as I see it, is the concept that a 40 hour workweek is "standard" and unchangeable. People still get paid, largely, by the amount of hours they warm up an office chair instead of what they produce. For instance, if you could do 40 hours of work in a 30 hour period, would you still get paid the same? No, you'd likely earn less because you "only" worked 30 hours, no matter that your output remained the same. I think this is a tremendous quality-of-life problem that faces our working society. Time is finite, so a logical person will accomplish their necessary tasks in as small a time window as possible. And to complete these tasks in short time, they'll work mostly during those hours when they operate at peak efficiency (and not work when their efficiency naturally ebbs.)
If all of our time was our own, the allocation of tasks to various time brackets would be far more efficient. A dream manager (and they do exist) is one who tells you "I don't care when you work; this is what I want you to accomplish and this is the date when these tasks should be completed." Maybe 9AM-5PM isn't the best time for you to do your best job. Maybe part of your workday covers a time period where you aren't your sharpest or most productive. You are forced to work, though, because that's the status quo. If you worked only when you are the most productive, perhaps you can accomplish 40 hours of "standard" work in a 30 hour time frame. I think this is entirely possible.
Some companies have now adopted a partial "free allocation of time" model by dictating "core working hours" of 11AM-3PM or so. It's a compromise but it's leagues better than the old 9-5 fixed standard.
Think about college. You had projects, assignments and studies that occupied a lot of time. But nobody said: you must do your work between the hours of 9AM-5PM. No, you did your assignments when you naturally decided it was time to work on them. There's this subconscious process of efficient time allocation. If you aren't sharp at 4PM or 11AM, you didn't study. If your mind cranks like crazy at 1PM or midnight, you worked your butt off. It's very frustrating that corporate work doesn't operate that way.
If you work in retail or in the public sector (teachers, cops, bus drivers), my idea of work utopia doesn't apply with much immediacy. But IT is a rather prime environment for applying status quo-shattering work/time allocation methods.
My vision may not be completely compatible with the 2002 mindset, but wait 10 or 20 years for technology to continue to knock down the barriers of space and time. You might see workweeks where you have to be in the office 2 days a week and work the rest on their own (either home or office). I know some lucky people have such workweeks now, but it isn't yet common.
The bottom line is improving the quality of life without disrupting our economic system.
Facebook
Twitter