How does a 60+ hour work week look like?

[KrazyHorse]

I have yet to find a single person in this thread say someone should not be allowed to work longer hours. I have seen several people say it is unreasonable for an employer to try to make people work longer hours and that they thus like having some form of legal protection no matter how limited. You're building a strawman here.

The fact that you think there is a substantive difference between allowing employees to "accept" working longer hours and allowing employers to "require" working longer hours is indicative of the level of understanding of most people in this thread.

To the extent that there is any friction at all caused by such a nonsensical distinction, it is a transaction cost placed between employers who would like employees to work longer hours and employees who would like to work longer hours, borne almost entirely by workers who would like to work longer hours (the elasticity of labor supply is far lower than the elasticity of labor demand).

This type of requirement (whether it be a waiver in the UK or exempt employee status in the US) is nothing more than a ridiculous intrusion of economic illiterates into private transactions.

[Al B. Sure!]

KH:

What the hell are you talking about? Oerdin's right. There is a difference between outlawing people from working 40+ hours and simply making it such that employers can't force it if the employee doesn't want to do it. Employment in America is usually on an at-will basis anyway but in countries or states where that is not so, that distinction would have relevance.

There are people who don't want to work 40+ hours and employers who would force them to do so. That happens all the time. I suppose those people would love it if there was some law that restricted being forced into working extra hours (not saying that there should be. Just that it would apply to them).

Overtime for hourly workers exists for roughly that reason. It discourages employers from demanding employees to work heavy hours by forcing additional compensation which may make hiring additional workers more attractive and it encourages workers who may not have been willing to work 40+ hours to do so.

[KrazyHorse]

Except that wasn't the point of his comment.

Yes, it was.

Also, I'm not saying everyone should work more than 40 hours, all I'm saying is that people SHOULD be able to if they want to. I don't think that it's "unfair competition" for somebody to be willing to work longer hours.

So some sort of waiver system is in order, perchance?

The second statement is a non-sequitur, unless you believe that all activities which should be allowed should also require the parties to sign waivers to engage in them.

This is why the computer analogy was apt.

The argument then turned to some sort of discussion about this law as a protection of worker safety, rather than simply a protection of worker choice. I hold no truck with that argument either, but the argument there is slightly more involved, as you are beginning to place conditions around the type of agreements which require a government waiver (those which you believe adversely impact worker safety).

[KrazyHorse]

KH:

What the hell are you talking about? Oerdin's right. There is a difference between outlawing people from working 40+ hours and simply making it such that employers can't force it if the employee doesn't want to do it.

Good thing I didn't equate those two things then, you ****ing twit.

[Al B. Sure!]

What does this mean then?

The fact that you think there is a substantive difference between allowing employees to "accept" working longer hours and allowing employers to "require" working longer hours is indicative of the level of understanding of most people in this thread.

Same relationship but in the positive sense of allowing... Why would they be no difference in this sense, but a difference in my negative sense?

[KrazyHorse]

Good ****ing lord, it's as clear as day.

[Al B. Sure!]

What is this then, genius?

Originally Posted by Oerdin
I have yet to find a single person in this thread say someone should not be allowed to work longer hours. I have seen several people say it is unreasonable for an employer to try to make people work longer hours and that they thus like having some form of legal protection no matter how limited. You're building a strawman here.

He said it in the negative sense as well. You brought up some other crap.

[Solomwi]

What does this mean then?



Same relationship but in the positive sense of allowing... Why would they be no difference in this sense, but a difference in my negative sense?

Not to short circuit KH's fun, but think about how many parties' agreement is needed for longer hours to be worked in relation to whether the idea is first raised by the employer or the employee. That's the fundamental flaw in your understanding that KH was pointing out.

[Al B. Sure!]

Not to short circuit KH's fun, but think about how many parties' agreement is needed for longer hours to be worked in relation to whether the idea is first raised by the employer or the employee. That's the fundamental flaw in your understanding that KH was pointing out.

What parties' agreement?

Boss: I need you to come in on Saturday
Employee: But I can't I have-
Boss: It is mandatory. You know what that means.
Employee: *Gulp* Yes, sir.


I really hate this idea that HC was putting out there that was like love it or leave it. If you don't want to work it, quit and find a new job. Like it's not that easy, people!

(again, I was the one who thinks people need to man up and just work it but I can understand that other things prevent someone from being willing to work long hours)

[Solomwi]

You're almost there.

[Al B. Sure!]

Originally Posted by Oerdin
I have yet to find a single person in this thread say someone should not be allowed to work longer hours. I have seen several people say it is unreasonable for an employer to try to make people work longer hours and that they thus like having some form of legal protection no matter how limited. You're building a strawman here.

Originally Posted by KrazyHorse
The fact that you think there is a substantive difference between allowing employees to "accept" working longer hours and allowing employers to "require" working longer hours is indicative of the level of understanding of most people in this thread.


note how Oerdin described it in the negative sense of not allowing whereas KH responded by saying that 'if you think there is a difference between' it in the positive sense of allowing.

[Solomwi]

Yeah, saw it the first time. Try not to worry about the structural details so much until you understand the substantive assertions being made.

[Al B. Sure!]

You're almost there.

What the hell are you all talking about?

There exist employees who don't want to work it but will be forced to work it in order to retain employment. What's all this about transaction costs and them being borne by those who want to work longer hours? Why is any of that relevant to the simple fact that some people don't want to work 40+ and feel there should be a law that prevents employers from forcing them to.

and that that would be different from a law forbidding 40+ hours.

How is the difference between those two concepts not a substantive difference?

[Solomwi]

Sweet ****ing Christ, Albie.

[Al B. Sure!]

Substantive difference...

Employer demands OT:
as of now... Employee either does it (regardless of how he feels about it) or quits
with the ability to not be forced to work it... Employee who wants to do it, works it; employee who doesn't want to, doesnt.
with a law forbidding it... Employee can not work it regardless of his desire.

I see a difference. Do you not?