|
dandy72 wrote: employer
I don't think he is talking from the point of an employer. He is implying a dedication, kind of sacrifice, in building the nation; akin to the way most of the European countries and Japan were built by the young people there, after the War.
|
|
|
|
|
Well then he needs to say it as such, 'cuz what I heard (too) is "make me richer, damnit!"
That being said, I do agree that younger workers need to prove themselves, and those who choose to be slackers from the get-go will never get anywhere - and deservedly so.
But as I wrote elsewhere, you also have to have to ability to recognize when an employer is just taking advantage of a naive workforce.
|
|
|
|
|
Need to add one more thing.
There is a vision at the national level to have the next generation Microsofts, Googles, Amazons, etc. to be run out of India. We are the most populous nation in the world, with a large young population, and certainly have the brains to achieve that. We need to raise ourselves from being an outsourcing shop to product-definition place, for yet-to-be-uncovered products. And this definitely needs dedication in a good percentage of our youngsters. This is what he's implying. Even if this takes the next 20 years, we should start NOW.
modified 31-Oct-23 10:40am.
|
|
|
|
|
Just make sure you get your fair share of Microsoft, Google and Amazon's good fortunes.
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: We need to raise ourselves from being an outsourcing shop to product-definition place, for yet-to-be-uncovered products. And this definitely needs dedication in a good percentage of our youngsters.
To do that you don't really need the youngs to work 70 hours, you need a change of mindset and work philosophy. The time I worked there (local production of european brands), I was   a couple of times a day (during a couple of years). People that you didn't have to guide them every step and even several times in the same step were reaaaaaalllyyy difficult to find.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I can be dedicated and driven in 40 hours, thank you very much.
You're not "nation building" by working for a demanding a**hole like that. You're wealth building, and not for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Respectfully agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
You might be wrong.
I'm an employer and I'd rather have well rested and happy employees than overworked employees.
I even prefer for them to have a four day work week and put in no more than the necessary eight hours a day, unless it's absolutely necessary.
Work from home for at least half the time and flexible work hours is not a problem.
More hours == more work is pretty outdated, and countries like Japan, where people generally make long hours, show the contrary.
Of course, some of these things are not applicable for factory workers and other professions.
Anyway, even for those professions, if I had a boss like that I'd be out as soon as I got a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly agree with every one of your points. I think you replied to the wrong post. 
If not, I'd be curious to understand what it is I've said you're disagreeing with.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm disagreeing with this part "If employers could get us to put in more hours, if it weren't for those pesky labor laws, most absolutely would put us through the ringer without hesitation." 
I think more and more employers are well aware that employees have choices and if you're not a good employer you'll lose employees quickly and also that a happy employee is a good employee.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'll grant you that. Most employers that people like to work for agree with you, they'd rather have happy employees even if it means they work fewer (but more productive) hours.
But there are employers, throughout the entire world, who only look at the bottom line as it affects their own paycheck/bonus. And that, IMO, should be strongly discouraged.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I think more and more employers are well aware that employees have choices and if you're not a good employer you'll lose employees quickly
Not sure I agree with the phrasing of that.
Is it possible that 10% used to understand that (as a significant factor) and 15% do now? Perhaps. But I haven't seen anything that suggests otherwise.
I can remember reading decades ago that it was well understood that there was an actual cost when employees turn over. But I don't see that resulting in actual changes any more now than in the past.
Look at the tech layoffs in the last 2 years which were the direct result of missteps by C level executives. Layoffs of course cause a huge hit on morale.
Look at some of the more public strikes over the summer where the companies involved had had very profitable years yet their public viewpoints do not acknowledge that at all.
Even in the tech industry companies (executives) still look at employees an interchangeable cogs. Outside the tech industry that is probably more prevalent.
And probably a lot of that is intentional in that they just do not think about it. At one company they wanted to promote this to employees by retaining a company that determined that the total compensation that the company paid was 5% above average. So all employees, salaries and benefits. They needed to do this because they had just altered the way employees were paid and many were taking home less than they had been.
|
|
|
|
|
What I hear him not saying is "I'm not making enough money. Do the work of two people, but I'll pay you as one person so I can get more rich!" How greedy does one person need to be?
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
This.
I "had something to prove" back in my early days, so I put in the hours, but at some point you have to be able to see when you're only doing that to line the owner's pockets, at your own health's expense.
Besides - if 70 hours of work per week is to be expected as the norm, then I'd expect to be paid for that number of hours to be the norm as well. Was anything mentioned about that? Otherwise it's just a rallying cry to "make me richer, you slaves".
Heck I'm not even talking about getting paid 1.5x or 2x for overtime. Just getting paid at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree, follow the money and you will see, more often than not, how and why decisions are made.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
When the CEO and other management cut their own hourly pay by almost half, then they can ask workers to do the same. That money can go to paying overtime.
Quality of work plummets when people are working so many hours on a regular basis. They end up creating so many problems that the net benefit goes negative. All for the schadenfreude and ego boost of seeing your workers suffer.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Kemner wrote: When the CEO and other management cut their own hourly pay by almost half
When they cut their income from the company to a much lower rate.
That is different than how much they get paid.
There are quite a few CEOs (and this might be one) that basically do not get 'paid' a rate. Rather they get stock. Options or just the ownership which goes up as the stock does.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. I was originally going to say "total compensation" but simplified it.
|
|
|
|
|
No. As a CIO I'd rather my staff work 40 hours a week and not burn themselves out.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: ... need to work 70 hours a week to succeed ...
in making him even more rich than he already is.
You'll spend your younger years believing that bullshit, then wake up one day and realize you've been working your ass into an early grave for sh*t pay just to make him richer.
|
|
|
|
|
Did he also state that companies should pay them for working 70 hours a week?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. If you not gifted in one way or the other, you need to put in hours to make it. To riches, that is.
If you can be happy with less, then it is better to be happy.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
aaahhhh yes; modern slavery.
I would argue that after 35/40 hours, or even less, you stop being productive.
So you have a bunch of employees showing up for work and having low productivity and be at the office just for show.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: I would argue that after 35/40 hours, or even less, you stop being productive.
That's also a huge part of it. That figure wasn't chosen at random.
At this stage in my life, I feel like I have nothing else to prove to anyone. That's not to say won't do some crunch time if I really, really, REALLY have to, but I'm not gonna make a habit of it, that's for sure.
After some amount of time, working extra hours becomes counterproductive. You end up reworking the mistakes you made when you were just too damned tired to think straight.
|
|
|
|
|
Because they work for him?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
