It sucks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Bush's efforts aren't over yet. The NSPS decision rules that weakening the union was illegal, but it didn't say the pay banding was illegal and they are proceeding with that. Bush is continuing to press for a NSPS like system in Congress now.

Won't go through. Congress was adamant about changing the rules. He'll get opposition from his own party on that issue.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
Say all you want about "work to live, not live to work," but all of the blue chip people who I have worked with spend more than 40 hours a week at work. I don't believe this to be a coincidence. You need to be hungry in order to be sharp.

My boss puts in 100+ hour weeks routinely. She is as sharp as a knife.

No doubt that employers like and promote people who do the work of 3 men on the pay of 1 man. They also like to see people who turn work into their life, however, on your dying day do you think you'll ever say "I wish I spent more time at the office" or do you think you'll wish you spent more time with your family, took that trip to Bali, wrote that book, or what ever?

People who do nothing but work do get ahead at work. It's a question of values and what you want out of life I guess. I might not be bad to spent 5-10 years on Wallstreet to make a bankroll and then retire to the 8-5 or buy a nice winery out in the country but there is no way in hell I'd do it for longer. The money isn't enough and I can't recover the lost portion of my life.

[MRT144]

im with oerdin, its a lifestyle choice

[Urban Ranger]

Just because somebody spends a lot of time at work doesn't mean he or she gets a lot done.

[David Floyd]

My first post in a long time! Woohoo!

Anyway, this is kind of dumb. You are paid a wage to do a certain job, and part of that job includes spending x amount of hours in the workplace. The government isn't making you do it - in fact, no one's making you do it. If you want to work less hours, you can. You might have to get a different job, and you'll certainly have to take a paycut, but expecting to have your cake and eat it too is unrealistic.

Now, personally, speaking from my perspective as a retail manager, I'd much rather just have a ton of part time employees and not pay anyone benefits. My profitability would shoot the roof. And, of course, as has already been alluded to in this thread, hourly workers, especially those in MrFun's situation (retail), get paid in direct proportion to the number of hours they work. In Texas, full time employees work a minimum of 32 hours per week, and no maximum, but are paid time and a half for every hour (well, minute) over 40 hours, and part time employees work 0-31 hours.

Obviously it works differently in the corporate world (ie, the 9-5 atmosphere which I want no part of, ever), and I think there probably is something to be said for businesses experimenting with fewer hours and seeing what happens to productivity. I'm all for that. If most workers are just as productive working 35 hours a week, then maybe it makes more sense to only require 35 hours a week.

What I'm against, though, is the government stepping in and mandating a 35 hour work week (for example). I see no good, and potentially a lot of bad, coming out of that type of resolution.

[David Floyd]

As an addendum, I think people who can't be productive working 40-50 hours a week are just plain lazy, however, if that's the reality, then conceivably businesses (non-retail, anyway) could save on certain operating costs such as electricity by requiring the number of hours that balance with maximum productivity, and no more. In that case, more power to them.

[Urban Ranger]

Floyd sighting!

[David Floyd]