Conversation

I actually am against it. It perpetuates the fiction that work can be regulated to a set tempo band. Pay people for time or outcomes or some mix, not for a duty cycle. Outside of acute-risk scenarios, treat people as adults who know their limits.
4
25
Ie pilots and surgeons need regulated limits because they might kill people otherwise. Everybody else… if they choose to work 100h one week and 20 the next, let them decide. Pay for outcomes or time, not how they balance work and leisure.
2
13
It’s a ridiculous fiction anyway. For jobs driven by urgency, limits on duty cycle are really an indirect way to negotiate overtime opportunity. If you turn 40 into 32, that’s really 8 more hours overtime if work demand patterns don’t change.
1
4
If nominal weekly salary is X for 40h they’re actually working 45h on average and getting paid for 50, so 1.25x. Now do 4-day week/32h… if work doesn’t change, they’re now getting 13h OT, not 5. 32+26=58h, or 1.45x, an effective 16% pay raise. Just give them the damn raise.
1
1
These theaters of time management are a obfuscating artifact of a history of management-union negotiation, not the reality of work. Clean up the optics. Pay people for the work, let them decide how hard. If you can’t staff up jobs, pay more. If a job is oversubscribed cut pay.
1
2
Show replies
Replying to and
Understood - if jobs where human efficiency *isn't* the deciding factor on that tempo? (Thinking of my days working in a Yorkshire pottery.) Yet heavily-shared case studies usually focus on jobs where people can hone their own productivity? (New to this. Apologies if dumb!)
1
Guess I'm making a presumption here though, that "efficiency" is "cutting ther slack" (managerial looking-down attitude) rather than "doing better-quality work that should be worth more" (worker-championing looking-up attitude.)
1
Show replies