Do we still have a 40 hour work week?

[Argus]

Some years ago this was established as "the norm", and to a greater or lessor extent, is enforced in most places, with employers being required to pay extra, generally time and a half, to employees who exceed a certain maximum hours during a given period.

However, I've noticed a strong and growing tendency from employers, both government and private sector, by the way, to require more of their salaried employees, and without overtime pay. This trend started, I think, in the tech world, where if you weren't really willing to devote long hours to your job you weren't considered to be 'part of the team'.

Recently, a director, during a 40 minute rant at a mid-level employee of my acquaintance, complained, among other things, that she wasn't giving '110%' to her job, although she was working through her lunches and breaks and sometimes taking work home. Some of the people under her have also been pressured to work longer hours and come in on weekends for free. His behavior was completely unacceptable, but even in a union environment people seem unwilling to cause waves by making an official complaint (I have been strongly urging her to do so).

But this 'give 110%' theme seems to be becoming a more common refrain from management. Of course, giving more than 100% is impossible, so in effect they're demanding employees do the impossible. Most of the people I know have more work than they can handle during regular work hours. A number of them are working through lunches and breaks. A guy I know who supervises mechanics is on salary and generally works 10-11 hrs a day, five days a week. Most of the management types I know in government (no union representation) work longer hours than that.

In both government and the private sector this seems driven by 'efficiencies', ie, firing employees and demanding the remainder work harder. But this presumes people weren't working hard to begin with and had a lot of slack in their work days. How do you work harder if that wasn't the case? By working longer. Managers and supervisors aren't covered by overtime pay in many places, so they can be worked like dogs. And what sympathy do they, in turn, feel for those beneath them who can't get the job done and want to go home on time? Probably very little.

I had an exchange with a manager on this score not very long ago. She routinely worked sixty hours a week, and her budget did not allow for overtime for her employees. She was not dumb enough to openly demand anyone work overtime hours, but was pressuring them constantly to get work done, to the extent they felt they had to work through lunches, and stay after work. "You don't see me leaving work at four O'clock, do you?" was her take. To which I replied when she paid her employees $100k per year they might be willing to stay over as well.

Executive pay, by the way, has increased 127 times faster than worker pay over the past thirty years.

Society evolved over the past some decades to find a balance between work life and home life, but employers are pushing back against this as hard as they can, legally, against those who aren't protected by the law, or illegally (as in organizations like Wal-Mart being repeatedly convicted of forcing employees to work overtime without being paid for it). It's not something I've seen media pay a lot of attention to in terms of 'inequality' but I believe is symptomatic of the efforts being made by the corporate world to enhance profits at the expense of their employees.

Employers have been clamping down on employee pay increases, but if at the same time they're demanding more work then the statistics are out of wack. A two percent increase (which is no increase given inflation) becomes something quite a bit less if you're working an extra hour a day.

[Shady]

Be self employed then. You can work as few hours as you'd like. You can pay yourself $50 dollars an hour with massive benefits and pension.

[kimmy]

Right now the employers are holding all the cards, given the state of the labor market. They can ask for more and give less in return, because they know that "take this job and shove it" isn't really a viable option when jobs are so hard to come by. There used to be an adage about a "carrot and stick" relationship, where you chase the donkey forward by whacking it with a stick, but also lead it forward by tempting it with a carrot. Nowadays, there's not much in the way of carrots being offered. It's all stick.

However, I think that this creates an environment where employees will do the minimum required to keep their jobs, and always be on the lookout for opportunities to move on. It's funny to hear employers gripe about a lack of loyalty and team spirit when all parties involved know that the lack of other options is the main reason the employee comes to work each day.

-k

[Argus]

Be self employed then. You can work as few hours as you'd like. You can pay yourself $50 dollars an hour with massive benefits and pension.

I AM self-employed, Shady, and why would I want to take a huge pay cut?

Unlike you, that doesn't mean I don't care about society or the people in it.

[Argus]

However, I think that this creates an environment where employees will do the minimum required to keep their jobs, and always be on the lookout for opportunities to move on. It's funny to hear employers gripe about a lack of loyalty and team spirit when all parties involved know that the lack of other options is the main reason the employee comes to work each day.

On several occasions I discussed this sort of thing with my own manager, who professed to love his job. He honestly seemed startled, and somewhat disbelieving, when I suggested to him that with one or two possible exceptions, none of his employees wanted to be there, and they were only there for lack of other options. Very few people have the luck of working at jobs they actually enjoy. And yes, I did the minimum I had to in order to get by, like a lot of others.

[Shady]

I AM self-employed, Shady, and why would I want to take a huge pay cut?

Unlike you, that doesn't mean I don't care about society or the people in it.

That's the funny thing about liberalism. It's not rooted in logic and reason, it's rooted in emotion, like caring. Because only people that care the most liberals. And of course, along with the so-called caring, it means big goverment deciding how much money somebody is allowed to make, and keep. It also involves big government deciding what the price of labour should be, how many hours they should work, etc. It's the easiest thing in the world to be a liberal. All you have to do is profess to care. Everything else doesn't matter.

[BubberMiley]

Be self employed then.

And this is why unions were necessary and will always be necessary.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Employers have been clamping down on employee pay increases, but if at the same time they're demanding more work then the statistics are out of wack. A two percent increase (which is no increase given inflation) becomes something quite a bit less if you're working an extra hour a day.

If it's so bad, then just quit so your employer can hire someone who won't complain about a good job with high pay. It's called work for a reason. And as for unions, those folks are often more miserable than unorganized labour for a host of different reasons. Nobody gets paid for whining.

[Argus]

That's the funny thing about liberalism. It's not rooted in logic and reason, it's rooted in emotion, like caring. Because only people that care the most liberals. And of course, along with the so-called caring, it means big goverment deciding how much money somebody is allowed to make, and keep. It also involves big government deciding what the price of labour should be, how many hours they should work, etc. It's the easiest thing in the world to be a liberal. All you have to do is profess to care. Everything else doesn't matter.

Are you suggesting that being conservative means not caring about anyone but yourself? Because I think you're mistaken.

[GostHacked]

Right now the employers are holding all the cards, given the state of the labor market. They can ask for more and give less in return, because they know that "take this job and shove it" isn't really a viable option when jobs are so hard to come by. There used to be an adage about a "carrot and stick" relationship, where you chase the donkey forward by whacking it with a stick, but also lead it forward by tempting it with a carrot. Nowadays, there's not much in the way of carrots being offered. It's all stick.

With my former employer, there was a time where we were to take on more responsibilities. When the team was asked if they would want to do this, I was the only one who replied with, how much more do we get paid for it? You know your answer there.

The other thing, is that we were paid overtime and pager pay. Made it better, but in many cases much of my team did no log the hours to get paid. Yet we constantly need to reduce costs.

However, I think that this creates an environment where employees will do the minimum required to keep their jobs, and always be on the lookout for opportunities to move on. It's funny to hear employers gripe about a lack of loyalty and team spirit when all parties involved know that the lack of other options is the main reason the employee comes to work each day.

-k

I kept hearing the theme of 'It's a great place to work!' while at the same time, massive layoffs were happening.

[Bob Macadoo]

Are you suggesting that being conservative means not caring about anyone but yourself? Because I think you're mistaken.

Too many worship at that altar.

I am an hourly employee and I have concern for my supervisor who was "demoted" from our ranks. I work 40+ hr/wk, and I make more hourly than him. He's driven by his year end bonus and it can diappear *poof* in a heartbeat if he's not giving 110+% all the time. Senior management then wonders why their brain trust won't step forward and all they can recruit are bobbleheads into low level management.

I work extra for the benefit/satisfaction I get from my job, not from fear or loathing of ending up in the bread line. I know I'm one of the lucky, and I'm thankful for it.

[Michael Hardner]

Really, people should not put up with such behaviour from employers - there are tool snow such as glass door.com where you can report on employers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Really, people should not put up with such behaviour from employers - there are tool snow such as glass door.com where you can report on employers.

Meh...it's not just about the employer's life balance practices. Frankly, I resent co-workers who refuse to contribute on projects beyond the bare minimum of their "job description", leaving the rest of the team to take up the slack come crunch time.

[Bob Macadoo]

Meh...it's not just about the employer's life balance practices. Frankly, I resent co-workers who refuse to contribute on projects beyond the bare minimum of their "job description", leaving the rest of the team to take up the slack come crunch time.

I do as well, I also resent supervisors who feel the fragile state of their bonus is the definition of "crunch time". I am up front about what I'm willing to go "b*lls to the wall" for and what I'm not. The best supervisors maximize that knowledge without exploiting it. I have had both kinds, can you guess which enjoyed their time with me?

[bush_cheney2004]

I do as well, I also resent supervisors who feel the fragile state of their bonus is the definition of "crunch time"....

To clarify, I don't do it for management or supervision, but rather for other members in the trench pulling hard on the same rope. Sometimes we are successful despite the role of supervisors and managers worried about bonuses and promotions. Peers quickly learn who they can count on and who has other priorities. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

[Remiel]

I wonder about productivity these days, because intuition seems to seriously contradict evidence. You would think that a man can force himself to work extra time over 40 hours and enrich himself in proportion to how much overtime he worked. But the more you work the more your productivity per hour falls. I have heard that what presaged the 40 hour work week was research that ~40 hours was all you could get out of people without harming their productivity; that working them too more much than that on a continuing could even cause their product for the week to fall. I have also heard that we have about 6 good hours of mental work in us per day.

I fear the problem is that the average manager relies overly much on their flawed intuitions about how much work you can get out of people and not on actual evidence.

[jacee]

I agree. Panic managers who harass their staff to work through breaks and lunch are not increasing but decreasing productivity and burning out staff in the long run, causing further declines in productivity.

Unforfunately, in many workplace cultures, a frantic work environment is encouraged and people who work at a steady, productive pace with breaks are disparaged.

[GostHacked]

I agree. Panic managers who harass their staff to work through breaks and lunch are not increasing but decreasing productivity and burning out staff in the long run, causing further declines in productivity.

Unforfunately, in many workplace cultures, a frantic work environment is encouraged and people who work at a steady, productive pace with breaks are disparaged.

If that needs to happen, then the place is understaffed.

[Bob Macadoo]

If that needs to happen, then the place is understaffed.

Or have the incorrect staff and rely on a small core to achieve goals, the old "80/20" rule. Either way thats based on mismanagement, not that this is ever found to be the root cause. Funny enough the self-reflection ends at "lazy worker", case solved.

[Michael Hardner]

Meh...it's not just about the employer's life balance practices. Frankly, I resent co-workers who refuse to contribute on projects beyond the bare minimum of their "job description", leaving the rest of the team to take up the slack come crunch time.

Sure, but there are far fewer such people today than bad managers.

[Argus]

If it's so bad, then just quit so your employer can hire someone who won't complain about a good job with high pay.

You consider working at Wal-Mart to be a 'good job with high pay" do you?

I can't say I'm impressed by the FOX mantra that employees should shut up, do what they're told, and not complain about anything.

[Argus]

To clarify, I don't do it for management or supervision, but rather for other members in the trench pulling hard on the same rope.

To clarrify further - you do it for management, so they can achieve their goals, and the company can be more profitable.

Just like those clerks at Health Canada. Management somewhat arbitrarily decided that was a good place to reduce head count so they could meet some arbitrary goals, and now are pressuring the remaining clerks to work unpaid overtime so management can look good.

Only a fool cooperates with that sort of goal.

[bush_cheney2004]

To clarrify further - you do it for management, so they can achieve their goals, and the company can be more profitable.

That may be true for you, but many times management is clueless about the inner workings of an IT shop. The company can be even more profitable if it laid us off. Our team's yearly goals are determined by...the team.

Just like those clerks at Health Canada. Management somewhat arbitrarily decided that was a good place to reduce head count so they could meet some arbitrary goals, and now are pressuring the remaining clerks to work unpaid overtime so management can look good.

Only a fool cooperates with that sort of goal.

Meh....I used to feel sorry for such whiners, but then I grew up. Salaried professionals are paid handsomely to get the job done, regardless of any personal gripes. Don't like it ? Resign and find something "better".

[Wilber]

This is cute.

http://fox40.com/2013/12/25/mc-mistake-mcdonalds-pulls-employee-resource-site-over-controversial-posts/

[Topaz]

Depending on ones income bracket and hourly wage, once one works over 4 hours weekly, you are going to pay more income tax. I also, think that 20-36 hours is now the normal for many and then the government complains that people aren`t saving for their retirement and the wages are between $10.75 and maybe 15.00. The MP`s probably spend more than that on chauffeurs, daily, and they should get out a walk because some of those people are WAYYYYY over weight!