Shorter working week

[sgtkate]

Interestingly in IT projects though, there is no real way to measure productivity (not effectively that I've ever seen anyway). So whilst there is no reason to be 9 - 5, there is good reason to ask for a set number of hours.

 

Surely hitting targets is all that's required? That's all that is asked of me. I am given deadlines to meet and if I meet them my boss and customers are happy. They aren't interested the slightest in how many I hours I spent to get there. But perhaps it comes down to trust. If I think the deadline is too long (i.e. I'd only have to work a few hours a day to hit it) I say so and try to get it brought forward so I deliver quicker and move on to another project. Equally if I think the deadline is too aggressive I say that too so I don't end up working 70 hours weeks if I can avoid it. If the deadline is fixed, then I suck it up and work the long hours knowing I can then take a week off as TOIL afterwards. Give and take. And means I am highly unlikely to ever leave my current company due to mutual respect.

[L00b]

No my argument is people are happier working less.

I wouldn't be. But that's the nature of the job/tasks and reverting to the context + personal choice issue.

 

The more seniority, responsibilities and job variety, the more interesting every day gets, the more of it I want.

 

Yet I have a colleague who is 'wired' differently and just wants and does a strict 9-5. About same seniority as me, less experience in some areas of practice, more experience in others, but just no drive as such.

 

And several colleagues at various stages in-between.

 

I'm certain all of them would be happy working less hours as a matter of principle (as a truism, if you will), but objectively be against the idea due to the roll-on roll-off workload with deadlines that would end up piling, and eventually creating job- or firm-terminating liability issues: better a quiet 37.5 hr 5 days week 100% error-free, than a mad-rushed 30 hr 4 day week 80% error-free with "5th day new stuff" to catch up on the week after, praying that none of the 20% error is going to end up shutting the firm with loss of all jobs.

Edited August 6, 2015 by L00b

[TJC1]

Surely hitting targets is all that's required? That's all that is asked of me. I am given deadlines to meet and if I meet them my boss and customers are happy. They aren't interested the slightest in how many I hours I spent to get there. But perhaps it comes down to trust. If I think the deadline is too long (i.e. I'd only have to work a few hours a day to hit it) I say so and try to get it brought forward so I deliver quicker and move on to another project. Equally if I think the deadline is too aggressive I say that too so I don't end up working 70 hours weeks if I can avoid it. If the deadline is fixed, then I suck it up and work the long hours knowing I can then take a week off as TOIL afterwards. Give and take. And means I am highly unlikely to ever leave my current company due to mutual respect.

 

Suppose what hes saying is difficulty in tangible measurement. Like innovation vs effectiveness.

I might disagree with the overall statement...

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 13:55 ----------

 

I wouldn't be. But that's the nature of the job/tasks and reverting to the context + personal choice issue.

 

The more seniority, responsibilities and job variety, the more interesting every day gets, the more of it I want.

 

Yet I have a colleague who is 'wired' differently and just wants and does a strict 9-5. About same seniority as me, less experience in some areas of practice, more experience in others, but just no drive as such.

 

And several colleagues at various stages in-between.

 

On average. More freedom is preferred. If you love your job and have a lot of freedons within the parameters of 40 hours or more. Great.

 

Millions dont have that luxury.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 13:58 ----------

 

I was very fortunate with my current job. On my first day my boss said I was hired to do a job and not to work set hours. I am flexible and have to work late at times and occasional weekends, but I can take a 2 hour lunch, or take Friday off or come in at 11am whenever suits.

 

This type of working will only work in an environment where there is a task to be done by an individual that can be done at any time of day or night and there aren't all that many jobs out there that support that.

 

A till operator needs to be there when there is trade.

A bus driver needs to be there when the bus is meant to be running.

 

However, people working on IT projects for example almost certainly do not need to work a 9-5 as long as rules are in place for meeting attendance. Many other industries would also benefit from this model.

 

I am far more effective working in this manner than if I was set fixed hours. I now quite often stay beyond 7pm to finish my current task, whereas if I was given fixed hours, I'd abandon it at 4.59pm and then waste 30 mins the next day trying to remember where I'd got to...

 

Flexibility and freedoms equals happier employees. Choices equals happier employees.

[L00b]

On average. More freedom is preferred. If you love your job and have a lot of freedons within the parameters of 40 hours or more. Great.

That's only enabled by a knowledge economy.

Millions dont have that luxury.

In a knowledge economy, it pays to soak up as much education as one can in early years. Elitist sounding perhaps, but that does not take away the validity of the comment.

[TJC1]

I wouldn't be. But that's the nature of the job/tasks and reverting to the context + personal choice issue.

 

The more seniority, responsibilities and job variety, the more interesting every day gets, the more of it I want.

 

Yet I have a colleague who is 'wired' differently and just wants and does a strict 9-5. About same seniority as me, less experience in some areas of practice, more experience in others, but just no drive as such.

 

And several colleagues at various stages in-between.

 

I'm certain all of them would be happy working less hours as a matter of principle (as a truism, if you will), but objectively be against the idea due to the roll-on roll-off workload with deadlines that would end up piling, and eventually creating job- or firm-terminating liability issues: better a quiet 37.5 hr 5 days week 100% error-free, than a mad-rushed 30 hr 4 day week 80% error-free with "5th day new stuff" to catch up on the week after, praying that none of the 20% error is going to end up shutting the firm with loss of all jobs.

 

Its context related. If you had a pressing personal matter but were forced to work you might be unhappy when previously you were happy with the hours.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 14:05 ----------

 

That's only enabled by a knowledge economy.

In a knowledge economy, it pays to soak up as much education as one can in early years. Elitist sounding perhaps, but that does not take away the validity of the comment.

 

I absolutely agree with that. Knowledge and education equals choices plus freedoms equals happiness.

 

consulting pays well and i dont have to work long hours.

A corporate job might pay more overall but what freedoms do you sacrifice?

[Cyclone]

But the culture is 5 days...not 4.

 

People are free to change their conditions, yet nobody even asks if they can. That rather says that they don't want to, so they think they are happier as they are.

[TJC1]

 

Most office workers have exactly this choice.

 

No they dont. A 5 day work week plus is expected in most offices.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 14:10 ----------

 

People are free to change their conditions, yet nobody even asks if they can. That rather says that they don't want to, so they think they are happier as they are.

 

See above. Its an asumption youre making and im concrete that they dont always have that option.

[Cyclone]

Surely hitting targets is all that's required? That's all that is asked of me. I am given deadlines to meet and if I meet them my boss and customers are happy. They aren't interested the slightest in how many I hours I spent to get there. But perhaps it comes down to trust. If I think the deadline is too long (i.e. I'd only have to work a few hours a day to hit it) I say so and try to get it brought forward so I deliver quicker and move on to another project. Equally if I think the deadline is too aggressive I say that too so I don't end up working 70 hours weeks if I can avoid it. If the deadline is fixed, then I suck it up and work the long hours knowing I can then take a week off as TOIL afterwards. Give and take. And means I am highly unlikely to ever leave my current company due to mutual respect.

 

Targets for development are generally pretty vague, as until you do the task you can only ever estimate how long it will take.

It works both ways though. If a task takes longer than expected, nobody stays behind to work extra hours for free to complete it. If it goes quicker than expected, they get it done and then start on the next task.

it's not like there's ever a shortage of development work to be done (except right now, where i am there is, but that's because the project has gone off the rails).

[TJC1]

I think that you're projecting your own desires onto everyone else.

 

Yes i am. It has a rationale behind it howevee. Not just wild assumptions.

[Cyclone]

No they dont. A 5 day work week plus is expected in most offices.

I've shown you the law.

 

They have the right to ask to change their working hours.

 

It's not guaranteed, but very few people even bother to ask.

 

They clearly don't want to.

 

I could work 4 days a week, I don't want to. My wife could, she doesn't want to.

 

Can you point to anyone that actually wants to? But is somehow stopped from doing so?

 

See above. Its an asumption youre making and im concrete that they dont always have that option.

 

It's based on the evidence of them not even asking to do it. Your opinion is based on what? Speculation or mind reading, not even the visible evidence.

 

---------- Post added 06-08-2015 at 14:15 ----------

 

Yes i am. It has a rationale behind it howevee. Not just wild assumptions.

 

Well why don't you go and start a poll.

 

Make it fair, don't pretend that people can work less time for the same pay, ask people if they'd like to take a 20% pay cut and work 4 days a week, or continue to work 5... Then if lots of people say they'd like to work less but can't, we can start to examine why not.