How does a 60+ hour work week look like?

[KrazyHorse]

lolmerick is much funnier

[Kuciwalker]

There exist employees who don't want to work it but will be forced to work it in order to retain employment.

Note to Albie: this describes virtually all jobs.

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

Explain the difference between: "work overtime or I fire you" and "sign this waiver allowing me to force you to work overtime or I don't hire you".

[KrazyHorse]

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.

Good ****ing lord, albie.

To go into ****ing plodding detail:

1) The situation where you forbid workers from working more than x hours per week full stop is different than the situation where you forbid employers from "making" workers work more than x hours per week, but allow the workers to easily opt out of this paternal "protection"

2) This second situation is not substantively different than the situation where employers and employees are allowed to freely contract without any "protection"; it is different in form but not in consequence (the hurdle to clear in such transactions is relatively low, AS IS BEING ALLOWED BY THE DEFENDERS OF THE WAIVER REQUIREMENT).

3) In the limit that there is no hurdle to clear in negotiating a "supernormal schedule" labor agreement, THE EFFECT OF THE WAIVER REQUIREMENT ON WORKERS WHOSE PREFERENCE IS TO ACCEPT JOBS BELOW THE THRESHOLD IS ABSOLUTELY NIL.

4) Whatever non-zero hurdle is placed on agreeing to a supernormal schedule is equivalent to inserting a transaction cost (a tax whose proceeds are destroyed) between those wishing to work a supernormal schedule and those wishing to employ them. As the elasticities generally favor purchasers of labor, this transaction cost is borne almost entirely by workers. The only way that benefits can accrue to those wishing to work a "normal schedule" is if the transaction cost is made high enough that substantial amounts of labor are siphoned out of the market. This represents a deadweight loss plus a transfer from those whose only flaw is wishing to work hard to those whose only virtue is not wishing to work hard.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Funny, my employer has no interest in getting anything from me but my labor, which I provide for a price. If I don't like the conditions of my employment or the price I am paid, I will go elsewhere. At no point in this does my dignity feel hurt in accepting a negotiated agreement between myself and another party. Do you think my employer feels put out when it is faced with the choice of paying me or losing me?

You're fighting for your right to have fewer rights in employment. You're entitled to do so, but if you're really determined to be a Sub you might as well ask for health and safety laws to be waived too.

However, I got a very nice job without going in for that, and I'm perfectly happy to let the employment laws help ensure my kids don't end up calling me "Uncle." I'll work long hours if I choose, but that's my call.

Employment laws don't prevent that; your own choices do.

No- the employment laws here really do prevent it, and by doing so empower me on this issue. And give me a genuinely free choice to use.

The idea that without the government looking out for you by making you sign a waiver you would end up toiling in the salt mines for untold weeks on end lets me know precisely how much faith in yourself you have to make good decisions...

That's an argument best used on someone whose salary and benefit levels leave them in doubt as to whether they're making good decisions.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Explain the difference between: "work overtime or I fire you" and "sign this waiver allowing me to force you to work overtime or I don't hire you".

There's no difference, in that (under maximum hours legislation) both would land the employer in front of a tribunal and see them paying damages. What's my prize?

[Kuciwalker]

Nothing, because it was in response to AS's asinine suggestion that employees who want to work more hours simply be forced to sign a waiver. Try reading before you post.

[Dinner]

Note to Albie: this describes virtually all jobs.

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

Explain the difference between: "work overtime or I fire you" and "sign this waiver allowing me to force you to work overtime or I don't hire you".

I agree there is very little difference between the two but that's kind of the result of the history of our employment law. At first the employer held all the cards, then unions came along and tried to tilt the balance of power back to employees a bit, but now we've gone back to where employees have little power beyond the power to quit. That was the whole reason for creating a class known as exempt employees to begin with. Sad but true.

[MikeH]

Oooh, I see what you did there. Nice debate trick. I'm a kid, so there is no way I could possibly make statements which could have any basis in the real world.

News flash: I ain't the only one who feels this way, and I know a bunch of people who are over 30 and over 40 who would be rather pissed off if they had to get a waiver signed just to earn some extra cash.

"to earn some extra cash"

Yes, but a lot of the time the extra work is unpaid overtime, that people are pressured into doing. Most people aren't on an hourly rate. So it's to protect people being forced to work long hours for no extra money

I bet a lot of city workers working 60+ hours are contracted to do 37.5 a week but they are compensated through bonuses. Many other professions aren't so lucky.

[MikeH]

I agree that it is a personal decision, and I don't think less of people for not wanting to work long hours, but I do find it ridiculous to say that nobody should be allowed to work long hours because you don't want to have to compete with the people who are willing.

xpost

Did anyone say that? I don't think they did. Which would make this a strawman.

[Dauphin]

Yes, it was.

At first I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, but you are failing to read fully then, and going straight into stock arguments.

And "protection" is not just H&S. Minimum wage is a protection with economic arguments against it.

[dannubis]

Average day:

Out of bed: 6.45
Behind PC: 7.15
Kid out of bed: 8.30
Kid at daycare: 9.15
To office: 10.15
Out of office: 19.15
Home: 20.15
Kid in bed: 21.00
PC off depending on workload: 22.00

Average week: 55-60 hours

Do I like my job? Yes. I consider myself to be lucky. The only that is starting to kill me is the commute.

[Devil's Advocate]

Feel free to find another job then.

No need. In my current job I work 35 hours a week for a great full time salary. It's an exciting and challenging position, and I've been rewarded with significant promotions and raises for my performance during my time here. Oh, and my benefits are outstanding.

[KrazyHorse]

At first I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, but you are failing to read fully then, and going straight into stock arguments.

And "protection" is not just H&S. Minimum wage is a protection with economic arguments against it.

Try responding to the actual post. Thanks.

[KrazyHorse]

No need. In my current job I work 35 hours a week for a great full time salary. It's an exciting and challenging position, and I've been rewarded with significant promotions and raises for my performance during my time here. Oh, and my benefits are outstanding.

If you feel that way then it's hard to see what you were objecting to, precisely...

[Devil's Advocate]

If you feel that way then it's hard to see what you were objecting to, precisely...

I object when employers (in general, not mine) expect long hours of unpaid overtime from their employees. It's too vague of an arrangement. "Well, they can find another job" is not the answer. Employees deserve to have a concrete agreement regarding their hours.