- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mandatory 80 hour work week.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:19 am to wackatimesthree
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:19 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Why do so many people think this?
Overtime pay is not taxed any differently than regular pay.
I imagine lots of people who have jobs where OT is available aren't great at math
0
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:21 am to Tantal
Heck, if I was under 55 I'd be in my bedroom playing video games all day, and listening to Tay-Tay on a loop.
What's up with this 80 hour work week silliness?
What's up with this 80 hour work week silliness?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:33 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Why do so many people think this? Overtime pay is not taxed any differently than regular pay.
Most people who work overtime are low iq.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:35 am to ShinerHorns
Dumb. There is much more to life than productivity
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:49 am to TheBeezer
quote:
Tell that to my wife who owns and operates her multi-million dollar a year business all from the comfort of her home office.
What’s her OnlyFans handle?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:49 am to SloppyFrog
quote:
I can't teach experience...that is earned through repetition and time on task.
Of course you can. What an odd claim.
Coaches teach players by experience. Teachers teach students from experience.
In fact, that's really the only way anyone teaches anyone else anything. If it were impossible to teach experience, every single person on the planet would have to start from scratch on everything and figure it out for themselves. There would be no teaching.
You can teach technique, you can teach strategies and protocols for efficiency, you can teach scripts/dialogue/etc. There's almost certainly no aspect of how you do things differently from your colleagues that can't be taught.
quote:
I strongly disagree on being paid for the amount of time you work as opposed to the amount of quality work you complete regardless of time.
This is also almost certainly not true.
You THINK it's true because you are only considering it from the standpoint of how that position currently benefits you—that you can complete the expected workload in a half day's time, as you have stated—but let's turn it around.
Let's say that instead of expecting an amount of work from you that takes you a half day's time (4 hours a day), let's say that when you interviewed for the job they communicated that they would be expecting an amount of work from you that you calculated would take you 16 hours a day.
You taking the job then?
Don't lie.
The fact is that both employers and employees use an 8 hour day as a standard metric around which to calculate both reasonable workloads and compensation, and this doesn't mean they have an "hourly mindset," like SFP likes to claim. Everyone figures employment that way.
No one expects to be paid the same for a part-time job as they do a full time job, and the biggest metric to determine which we're talking about is the amount of time spent working, not the amount of work done.
Case in point, by your own reasoning. Employees have different capacities for efficiency. Isn't that your main point? You can accomplish more work in the same amount of time, right?
So if employees have differing capacities for work efficiency, the only standardizing metric is time, which everyone has exactly the same amount of. There's no such thing as having a greater or lesser capacity for time. It's the only way to be on the same page in a standard employee arrangement.
You can try to say it doesn't matter and that it shouldn't be considered, but there's no way in a standard employee situation to avoid it, and the people who claim otherwise are usually the first ones to start crying, "work-life balance" when the amount of work required significantly exceeds the standard 8 hour day in terms of the amount of time required to fulfill it.
You could go off the beaten path of the standard work situation and get paid by commission only, or you could be an independent contractor and somehow get paid by the task.
But otherwise, time is not going away as a consideration.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:53 am to wackatimesthree
I remember right after my residency that they restricted anything over 80 hours, which would have been nice to have in place a few years earlier.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 8:59 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
This is also almost certainly not true.
You THINK it's true because you are only considering it from the standpoint of how that position currently benefits you—that you can complete the expected workload in a half day's time, as you have stated—but let's turn it around.
Let's say that instead of expecting an amount of work from you that takes you a half day's time (4 hours a day), let's say that when you interviewed for the job they communicated that they would be expecting an amount of work from you that you calculated would take you 16 hours a day.
Here is the thing, they clearly did not communicate this. There is a set amount of work expected to be done. End of story.
quote:
The fact is that both employers and employees use an 8 hour day as a standard metric around which to calculate both reasonable workloads and compensation, and this doesn't mean they have an "hourly mindset," like SFP likes to claim.
That's exactly what it is.
quote:
Everyone figures employment that way.
Backwards thinking management does, especially when dealing with large populations of employees.
They are substituting creativity and forethought in the process for uniformity accommodating the least reasonable worker (in terms of output).
They aren't striving for greatness. Instead, they are creating their workspace to accommodate the worst employee in that group, to ensure they have someone to fill that seat. This is exactly the type of inefficient corporate-bureaucratic thinking that costs companies lots of money.
quote:
No one expects to be paid the same for a part-time job as they do a full time job,
You're still framing this in terms of hours and not goals.
It doesn't have to be that way.
quote:
and the biggest metric to determine which we're talking about is the amount of time spent working, not the amount of work done.
Think about what you just wrote and how insane that is from an efficiency standpoint (especially from the outer range of positive productivity).
That is the thinking of an assembly line of the most lower-level manufacturing, where time spent on task actually does correlate to productivity. That's the mindset your projecting on an entirely different class of worker and productivity.
quote:
So if employees have differing capacities for work efficiency, the only standardizing metric is time
Or, you know, productivity.
quote:
You can try to say it doesn't matter and that it shouldn't be considered, but there's no way in a standard employee situation to avoid it,
Catering to the LCD, or as I said earlier, "creating their workspace to accommodate the worst employee in that group"
quote:
But otherwise, time is not going away as a consideration.
The companies who focus on this will stay behind their peers who see the picture more clearly.
I'm glad you people still exist. It makes my more intelligent and efficient workstyle that much higher margin and +EV.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm glad you people still exist.
You might not be so glad going forward.
As much as you claim that I have an hourly mindset, I see that the truth is that you have an independent contractor mindset.
I spent my career employing people. Sounds like you have spent yours as an employee.
Ignore the viewpoint of employers at your peril.
If I still had my business and your attitude was the trend, I would just start outsourcing to ICs.
That's the actual relationship that makes sense the way you see it.
And other employers are going to start catching on and doing the same.
This post was edited on 12/8/24 at 9:11 am
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Think about what you just wrote and how insane that is from an efficiency standpoint (especially from the outer range of positive productivity).
That is the thinking of an assembly line of the most lower-level manufacturing, where time spent on task actually does correlate to productivity. That's the mindset your projecting on an entirely different class of worker and productivity.
The companies who focus on this will stay behind their peers who see the picture more clearly.
So you would be o.k. with me deciding that your productivity = part time job and paid you accordingly?
Because absent the time it took you to do it, how would you argue that it was really full-time?
This post was edited on 12/8/24 at 9:14 am
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:14 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
As much as you claim that I have an hourly mindset, I see that the truth is that you have an independent contractor mindset.
I'm the Colonel of the motherfricking tank, to quote a philosopher from the 90s.
quote:
If I still had my business and your attitude was the trend, I would just start outsourcing to ICs.
That's the actual relationship that makes sense the way you see it.
It's not. Again, I'm glad my competition sees things the inefficient and unproductive way you do. It gives me a major edge, especially in innovation and seeking out those new avenues of efficiency.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:16 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
So you would be o.k. with me deciding that your productivity = part time job and paid you accordingly?
I'd get a new job if you changed the terms midstream because of your analytical shortcomings.
quote:
Because absent the time it took you to do it, how would you argue that it was really full-time?
Again, you are still equating everything to time.
That only works with the most low-level, unthinking jobs/roles.
When working in the knowledge/service economy and seeking innovation and improvement, you're working backwards.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:18 am to ShinerHorns
quote:
Any young person fresh out of college should be required to work 80 hours a week for at least the first ten years of their professional life. I think it would teach these young lazy libs a lot about hard work and being a productive member of society. We have too many people skating by on just working 40 hours a week and society has gotten lazy as a result of it.
This might be the dumbest post I've read on this site and that's saying something
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not.
It is.
quote:
I'm glad my competition sees things the inefficient and unproductive way you do. It gives me a major edge, especially in innovation and seeking out those new avenues of efficiency.
What makes you think I'm your competition? I don't represent competition, I represent your boss.
And again, if I'm going to be paying someone who demands to WFH when and how they feel like it, that describes an IC. That's not even debatable. That's a fact. You as a lawyer should know that. The IRS requirements for legitimate IC classification is basically a list of the things you argue for.
And if I am going to be relying on an IC, why wouldn't it be the most efficient scenario to hire one officially and avoid the payroll taxes and other expenses that follow an employee instead of hiring an IC but pretending he's an actual employee?
How would your scenario be more efficient?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:20 am to wackatimesthree
Has OP come back to defend his ridiculous position yet
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'd get a new job if you changed the terms midstream because of your analytical shortcomings.
O.k., but what would your justification for quitting your job be?
How would you argue that it was unfair, apart from just the fact that terms changed? Remember, getting an unexpected raise also represents the change of terms, so you can't argue just on the basis of that, you have to argue how the change is unfair.
quote:
Again, you are still equating everything to time.
I'm not equating anything. I'm asking you a question that you can't answer, and the reason you can't answer it is that YOU ALSO equate work with time, although you are doing your best to avoid admitting it.
This is another one of those times when you are wrong but will not admit it.
If you do not factor time into this equation then you have no standard metric by which to determine whether an appropriate amount of work is being done.
I can claim it's part time and you have no way to tell me I'm wrong.
Absent time, this is simply, "How long is a piece of string?"
This post was edited on 12/8/24 at 9:25 am
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:22 am to The Egg
quote:
Has OP come back to defend his ridiculous position yet
I don't think so...not lately anyway.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:24 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
What makes you think I'm your competition?
I never said you were.
I said I'm glad my competition still sees this the way you do.
quote:
I don't represent competition, I represent your boss.
I am the boss.
quote:
if I'm going to be paying someone who demands to WFH
I have not mentioned WFH once ITT
quote:
The IRS requirements for legitimate IC classification is basically a list of the things you argue for.
Not at all.
Most contractors are also paid....hourly, further blowing up this theory of yours
quote:
And if I am going to be relying on an IC, why wouldn't it be the most efficient scenario to hire one officially and avoid the payroll taxes and other expenses that follow an employee instead of hiring an IC but pretending he's an actual employee?
Based on how you project seeking control, I doubt you could follow the IRS guidelines on IC, specifically this one:
quote:
Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
No way you'd give up that control.
quote:
How would your scenario be more efficient?
Better productivity and more innovation.
How would hiring ICs who you'd pay hourly for rote work be more efficient than hiring people who are more productive for your company? If they innovated anything, it would be their property, too. How does that benefit you?
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:29 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
O.k., but what would your justification for quitting your job be?
You unilaterally lowered my pay.
quote:
How would you argue that it was unfair,
"Unfair" has nothing to do with it. You are offering me a new agreement hat I decline.
quote:
apart from just the fact that terms changed?
"The terms" being salary. Yes, the fact that you unilaterally attempted to lower my salary. Salary is a major part of the employer-employee relationship.
quote:
Remember, getting an unexpected raise also represents the change of terms,
It's a new agreement, the same as you lowering wages.
quote:
you have to argue how the change is unfair.
I'm not arguing fairness. That's your strawman.
quote:
I'm not equating anything
That's literally exactly what you're doing.
quote:
I'm asking you a question that you can't answer,
I can. Salaried "full time" doesn't require a specific number of hours "at the office" or "worked". It can, but it doesn't have to. You're arguing it has to, which is patently untrue.
As I said, specifically in response to your silly question
quote:
That only works with the most low-level, unthinking jobs/roles.
When working in the knowledge/service economy and seeking innovation and improvement, you're working backwards.
quote:
and the reason you can't answer it is that YOU ALSO equate work with time, although you are doing your best to avoid admitting it.
I don't.
Posted on 12/8/24 at 9:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No way you'd give up that control.
You're claiming I never outsourced labor instead of hiring an employee in house?
Of course I did.
What a moronic claim.
What business have you ever heard of in which no labor was outsourced?
quote:
Most contractors are also paid....hourly, further blowing up this theory of yours
Got a link? I never paid outsourced labor hourly.
Now I know many IC doctors get paid hourly (which blows up YOUR claim that "hourly thinking" only applies to low level employees), but the doctors I hired were employees and the IC I hired got paid based on production metrics.
quote:
Better productivity and more innovation.
What proof can you provide to substantiate those claims?
quote:
If they innovated anything, it would be their property, too. How does that benefit you?
Not every industry is tied to innovation. But even so, that's not proof that innovation is more likely either way, it's only a statement of what happens if innovation does occur, and it's not necessarily true.
I've outsourced marketing to companies who develop scripts for us and what they created for us was our property, not theirs.
Finally, you're losing. Know how I (and everyone else) can tell? Because you're slipping into ad hom territory with your digs about "control."
Your losing is showing, dude.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News