I would love for this to be a thing if only to marginally reduce the opportunities for casual exploitation that most people who work any set shift experiences.
I have never, ever, worked an office job whereupon finishing what was expected of me sooner than expected that I wasn't given more responsibilities that should not have been mine. And, sooner than later, those extra responsibilities simply become yours, without any impact on your pay or title. Because, well, you're there, are you not going to do what your boss tells you to?
Is this salary work, or are you bitching that in your hourly pay job, they expected you to work the hours they were paying you for?
When somebody says "office job" I nearly always assume salary work. Or at the very least "hourly" work, where you are expected to work precisely forty hours a week (but can be paid overtime).
Either way, it's shitty to be hired to do one thing and end up doing about twelve and taking over other tasks that keep creeping on. Regardless of how you're being paid, if you're hired to handle phones and organize files, and then you end up having to make a bunch of outbound calls, and then more of a different type, and then fix broken printers, and then manage the office supplies, it's a shitty thing.
I guess I'm not seeing the huge imposition, assuming you're not being asked to take on responsibilities way above your pay level. If you're hired as an admin assistant for $35k and they have you doing programming work that most people get $60k for, yeah, that's lame. But if you're hired to answer the phones and keep the cabinets organized, and later on they find that that only occupies 30 hours a week so they have you run print jobs and keep an eye on the fax machine? Boo hoo. They're paying you for 40 hours a week, and it's not unreasonable to expect you to actually work 40 hours a week.
Now, if you're being kept busy 40 hours a week and they keep asking you to do more stuff that requires you to either work OT or compromise your quality of work on your other tasks, that's different. But it doesn't sound like that's what you're griping about.
It's an imposition because it's not what I signed up for.
I should also point out that at my start it was a two day week, now it is six. And the hours have kept creeping outward in both directions. Now I don't get home until seven sometimes, but I can never tell beforehand. So overall I'm just dissatisfied.
I'm having trouble seeing how this sort of conversation is supposed to go.
Employer: "Oh, hey there, Bruce. Playing Solitaire?"
Employee: "Yup. Finished all the jobs you gave me. Now I'm going to sit here and dick around for the next two hours."
Employer: "Oh, good job. So... if you're not doing anything, can you help me with this other task?"
Employee: "Nope, sorry, don't think I can do that. Oh, sweet, there's that ace of hearts."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm having trouble seeing how this sort of conversation is supposed to go.
Employer: "Oh, hey there, Bruce. Playing Solitaire?"
Employee: "Yup. Finished all the jobs you gave me. Now I'm going to sit here and dick around for the next two hours."
Employer: "Oh, good job. So... if you're not doing anything, can you help me with this other task?"
Employee: "Nope, sorry, don't think I can do that. Oh, sweet, there's that ace of hearts."
IMO, it's more like
Me: Hey, boss? I finished calibrating the confabulator early. Is there something else I can do for you?
Employer Option the First: Nah, go home. See you tomorrow morning. (Results-oriented work environment!)
Employer Option the Second: Sure. How about you unfinagle the widgets?
Me: Okay, sure! *unfinagles ALL the widgets*
Me, a month later: Hey, boss. When I was hired, my job description was to calibrate the farkinator. Since then, I've been calibrating the confabulator and unfinagling the widgets. How about a raise?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If you divorce employment from huge fixed-cost benefits (like medical insurance) you can just hire more people, with each working less (but substantial) hours.
Well, there are always fixed costs associated with headcount. You can reduce them, but they're not totally escapable.
I spend 50-60 hours a week working as a software developer. I would say that a lot of my time feels forced because it's expected to put in the hours. Putting in the hours earns respect, despite management's claim to be results-oriented. As a result, I feel like the life portion of my work-life balance is suffering greatly.
I will say that I could be more focused on using my time at work more effectively. If I finish my tasks early that might mean spending time studying and learning new skills instead of posting to Penny Arcade forums. Getting into that rhythm where almost every day has a productive working routine is key. I find that once I do find my rhythm, taking even a Friday off can easily throw it off. So that would be my counter to the 4 day work week; some jobs just require more immersion. Even if I spend the fifth day at the office working on what amounts to side projects, the fact that I'm keeping my brain sharp and ready to write code is worth something.
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I will say that I could be more focused on using my time at work more effectively. If I finish my tasks early that might mean spending time studying and learning new skills instead of posting to Penny Arcade forums. Getting into that rhythm where almost every day has a productive working routine is key. I find that once I do find my rhythm, taking even a Friday off can easily throw it off. So that would be my counter to the 4 day work week; some jobs just require more immersion. Even if I spend the fifth day at the office working on what amounts to side projects, the fact that I'm keeping my brain sharp and ready to write code is worth something.
I actually used to do this, but the increased business and job creep have left me with time too inconsistent.
I wouldn't like a 4x10 schedule because A) after about 8 hours of work, my productivity tanks anyway, and I would pretty much not get to see my kids 4 days a week. Right now I get off between 4-4:30, get home around five, make dinner, and get to play with them for maybe an hour once you figure in homework and baths and whatever.
It would also presumably up daycare costs. If the kids are going to school on a 5 day schedule, then you're saving maybe 3 hours of daycare one day and adding about 8 hours across the other 4 days.
I can see how it makes sense for folks without children, though.
You see them all day for 3 days though. The bigger issue is child care and such while you are at work. But that's an issue now too.
Well, no. Because they're in school five days a week. Unless we're also suggesting that kids attend school for longer periods on 4 days a week, which is crazy, because little kids can't be expected to focus 8-9 hours per day. So I wind up seeing them all day for two days, half a day on Friday, and pretty much not at all.
Though really, even if they did only attend school 4 days a week, having pretty much zero time with them for four days in a row would be lousy.
And right now you see them 2 whole days and then maybe a couple of hours a night.
4 day week you see them 2 hours less 4 days a week and way more on fridays.
For a good 6 months I was doing 4 days a week (managers suggestion, since I was mentally low to the point of quitting, and he had a hunch there was something like 3 months in my leave account) - that extra day (in my case a Friday) was really brilliant for doing all the stuff that I put off for years (doctors, dentists, health appointments) and it was a lot better to do my 'weekend' stuff on that day and beat the working crowd trying to do it on Sat (eg. buying big stuff like furniture, going to the bank, paying off bills, shopping).
Personally, I think most workplaces would benefit from a staffing POV - it means you get certain people out of the office and have the others take the responsibility for running things. It means the team is better suited when staff aren't there for other reasons.
I would love for this to be a thing if only to marginally reduce the opportunities for casual exploitation that most people who work any set shift experiences.
I have never, ever, worked an office job whereupon finishing what was expected of me sooner than expected that I wasn't given more responsibilities that should not have been mine. And, sooner than later, those extra responsibilities simply become yours, without any impact on your pay or title. Because, well, you're there, are you not going to do what your boss tells you to?
Is this salary work, or are you bitching that in your hourly pay job, they expected you to work the hours they were paying you for?
When somebody says "office job" I nearly always assume salary work. Or at the very least "hourly" work, where you are expected to work precisely forty hours a week (but can be paid overtime).
Either way, it's shitty to be hired to do one thing and end up doing about twelve and taking over other tasks that keep creeping on. Regardless of how you're being paid, if you're hired to handle phones and organize files, and then you end up having to make a bunch of outbound calls, and then more of a different type, and then fix broken printers, and then manage the office supplies, it's a shitty thing.
I guess I'm not seeing the huge imposition, assuming you're not being asked to take on responsibilities way above your pay level. If you're hired as an admin assistant for $35k and they have you doing programming work that most people get $60k for, yeah, that's lame. But if you're hired to answer the phones and keep the cabinets organized, and later on they find that that only occupies 30 hours a week so they have you run print jobs and keep an eye on the fax machine? Boo hoo. They're paying you for 40 hours a week, and it's not unreasonable to expect you to actually work 40 hours a week.
Now, if you're being kept busy 40 hours a week and they keep asking you to do more stuff that requires you to either work OT or compromise your quality of work on your other tasks, that's different. But it doesn't sound like that's what you're griping about.
But they're not just paying you for 40 hour work weeks - otherwise we could all happily make minimum wages, because hey, we spend the same amount of time working! They're paying for competence, efficiency, various skills, experience and so on and so forth.
If they can increase your responsibility because you turn out to be better at doing what they want you do to so they can use your talents elsewhere, then either they misjudged the original pay - and given that management as already demonstrated a willingness to pay X for getting Y done, the employee is essentially giving negotiating ground for no reason at all - or you're actually really good at what they want you do, and its then reasonable that you are compensated for this.
Either way, there is no reason for an employee to accept significant amounts of additional responsibilities without additional pay.
So yes, you have to be very, very careful what you use as a metric. The classic example is phone support...generally the metric is either calls completed or tickets closed, which means I have the incentive to either get you off the phone as fast as possible or close your ticket ASAP, regardless of if I've actually helped you.
Yeah, I'm front-line phone IT support for a hospital system and we're supposed to be transitioning to performance based raises and our manager is trying to figure out how the hell that would work. Since the goal is for the sysadmins and application analysts to actually fix shit so we get fewer calls, for us to help users help themselves, and when possible, actually spend time on the phone with them. It's hard to quantify. I think the compromise was basically that he ended up being the one based on performance, and that is based on getting call abandonment and a couple other things down.
Either way, it's shitty to be hired to do one thing and end up doing about twelve and taking over other tasks that keep creeping on. Regardless of how you're being paid, if you're hired to handle phones and organize files, and then you end up having to make a bunch of outbound calls, and then more of a different type, and then fix broken printers, and then manage the office supplies, it's a shitty thing.
I would love for this to be a thing if only to marginally reduce the opportunities for casual exploitation that most people who work any set shift experiences.
I have never, ever, worked an office job whereupon finishing what was expected of me sooner than expected that I wasn't given more responsibilities that should not have been mine. And, sooner than later, those extra responsibilities simply become yours, without any impact on your pay or title. Because, well, you're there, are you not going to do what your boss tells you to?
Is this salary work, or are you bitching that in your hourly pay job, they expected you to work the hours they were paying you for?
When somebody says "office job" I nearly always assume salary work. Or at the very least "hourly" work, where you are expected to work precisely forty hours a week (but can be paid overtime).
Either way, it's shitty to be hired to do one thing and end up doing about twelve and taking over other tasks that keep creeping on. Regardless of how you're being paid, if you're hired to handle phones and organize files, and then you end up having to make a bunch of outbound calls, and then more of a different type, and then fix broken printers, and then manage the office supplies, it's a shitty thing.
I guess I'm not seeing the huge imposition, assuming you're not being asked to take on responsibilities way above your pay level. If you're hired as an admin assistant for $35k and they have you doing programming work that most people get $60k for, yeah, that's lame. But if you're hired to answer the phones and keep the cabinets organized, and later on they find that that only occupies 30 hours a week so they have you run print jobs and keep an eye on the fax machine? Boo hoo. They're paying you for 40 hours a week, and it's not unreasonable to expect you to actually work 40 hours a week.
Now, if you're being kept busy 40 hours a week and they keep asking you to do more stuff that requires you to either work OT or compromise your quality of work on your other tasks, that's different. But it doesn't sound like that's what you're griping about.
But they're not just paying you for 40 hour work weeks - otherwise we could all happily make minimum wages, because hey, we spend the same amount of time working! They're paying for competence, efficiency, various skills, experience and so on and so forth.
If they can increase your responsibility because you turn out to be better at doing what they want you do to so they can use your talents elsewhere, then either they misjudged the original pay - and given that management as already demonstrated a willingness to pay X for getting Y done, the employee is essentially giving negotiating ground for no reason at all - or you're actually really good at what they want you do, and its then reasonable that you are compensated for this.
Either way, there is no reason for an employee to accept significant amounts of additional responsibilities without additional pay.
This entire argument rests on the the assumption that you and your employer don't have at least an implicit agreement to work 40 hours a week. I can only speak for my experience in software engineering, but in all my jobs and interviews there was either that implicit agreement or if you pressed it was explicitly stated that you worked near 40 hours a week normally and then overtime if required. Maybe there are jobs where what your required to do is very narrowly defined, but I can't imagine a job posting for a admin assistant that only defines the job as answering phones and not copying stuff as was argued above.
Also this is from the first page, but since when if lunch counted in your hours worked? 9 - 6 with an hour lunch is a 40 hour work week, not 45 hours.
So yes, you have to be very, very careful what you use as a metric. The classic example is phone support...generally the metric is either calls completed or tickets closed, which means I have the incentive to either get you off the phone as fast as possible or close your ticket ASAP, regardless of if I've actually helped you.
Yeah, I'm front-line phone IT support for a hospital system and we're supposed to be transitioning to performance based raises and our manager is trying to figure out how the hell that would work. Since the goal is for the sysadmins and application analysts to actually fix shit so we get fewer calls, for us to help users help themselves, and when possible, actually spend time on the phone with them. It's hard to quantify. I think the compromise was basically that he ended up being the one based on performance, and that is based on getting call abandonment and a couple other things down.
A lot of call centers are outsourced. The call center gets paid by the closed ticket(and typically penalized for crap like abandoned calls). It makes sense that closing tickets would be a main metric, so long as the other requirements of their customer are met. The metrics and outsourced call center want aren't necessarily the same as the ones management would want to see from an in house help desk. There's no motivation when you are outsourced to educate the customer about how not to have to call in again. Taking that extra time when you are in-house, will save the company money down the road. That costs an outsourced call center money.
Either way, it's shitty to be hired to do one thing and end up doing about twelve and taking over other tasks that keep creeping on. Regardless of how you're being paid, if you're hired to handle phones and organize files, and then you end up having to make a bunch of outbound calls, and then more of a different type, and then fix broken printers, and then manage the office supplies, it's a shitty thing.
Either way, it's shitty to be hired to do one thing and end up doing about twelve and taking over other tasks that keep creeping on. Regardless of how you're being paid, if you're hired to handle phones and organize files, and then you end up having to make a bunch of outbound calls, and then more of a different type, and then fix broken printers, and then manage the office supplies, it's a shitty thing.
Yeah that's pretty much me alright. In fact I'm here on my day off getting Active Directory installed. Weee!
I'm supposed to be a programmer.
So start looking for another job, get an offer, and use that as leverage to ask for more money. Or use your next review cycle to ask for a raise/bigger raise. If you accept it and just complain there is almost zero downside for your employer.
Have another job lined up it is just taking months to get through their hiring process. And you have no idea how this company works... one step above a sweatshop. :-P
Have another job lined up it is just taking months to get through their hiring process. And you have no idea how this company works... one step above a sweatshop. :-P
If people are that sweaty maybe you should set up some fans.
Posts
It's an imposition because it's not what I signed up for.
I should also point out that at my start it was a two day week, now it is six. And the hours have kept creeping outward in both directions. Now I don't get home until seven sometimes, but I can never tell beforehand. So overall I'm just dissatisfied.
So how much do they value running print jobs and keeping an eye on the fax machine? It has to be some number higher than zero.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Employer: "Oh, hey there, Bruce. Playing Solitaire?"
Employee: "Yup. Finished all the jobs you gave me. Now I'm going to sit here and dick around for the next two hours."
Employer: "Oh, good job. So... if you're not doing anything, can you help me with this other task?"
Employee: "Nope, sorry, don't think I can do that. Oh, sweet, there's that ace of hearts."
IMO, it's more like
Me: Hey, boss? I finished calibrating the confabulator early. Is there something else I can do for you?
Employer Option the First: Nah, go home. See you tomorrow morning. (Results-oriented work environment!)
Employer Option the Second: Sure. How about you unfinagle the widgets?
Me: Okay, sure! *unfinagles ALL the widgets*
Me, a month later: Hey, boss. When I was hired, my job description was to calibrate the farkinator. Since then, I've been calibrating the confabulator and unfinagling the widgets. How about a raise?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Employer: Have you got a minute?
Me: Can it wait for a bit? I'm in the middle of some calibrations.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
True.
True, but only because asking for a raise is a crap-shoot at best.
I will say that I could be more focused on using my time at work more effectively. If I finish my tasks early that might mean spending time studying and learning new skills instead of posting to Penny Arcade forums. Getting into that rhythm where almost every day has a productive working routine is key. I find that once I do find my rhythm, taking even a Friday off can easily throw it off. So that would be my counter to the 4 day work week; some jobs just require more immersion. Even if I spend the fifth day at the office working on what amounts to side projects, the fact that I'm keeping my brain sharp and ready to write code is worth something.
I actually used to do this, but the increased business and job creep have left me with time too inconsistent.
And right now you see them 2 whole days and then maybe a couple of hours a night.
4 day week you see them 2 hours less 4 days a week and way more on fridays.
Personally, I think most workplaces would benefit from a staffing POV - it means you get certain people out of the office and have the others take the responsibility for running things. It means the team is better suited when staff aren't there for other reasons.
If they can increase your responsibility because you turn out to be better at doing what they want you do to so they can use your talents elsewhere, then either they misjudged the original pay - and given that management as already demonstrated a willingness to pay X for getting Y done, the employee is essentially giving negotiating ground for no reason at all - or you're actually really good at what they want you do, and its then reasonable that you are compensated for this.
Either way, there is no reason for an employee to accept significant amounts of additional responsibilities without additional pay.
Yeah, I'm front-line phone IT support for a hospital system and we're supposed to be transitioning to performance based raises and our manager is trying to figure out how the hell that would work. Since the goal is for the sysadmins and application analysts to actually fix shit so we get fewer calls, for us to help users help themselves, and when possible, actually spend time on the phone with them. It's hard to quantify. I think the compromise was basically that he ended up being the one based on performance, and that is based on getting call abandonment and a couple other things down.
@Urahonky
This entire argument rests on the the assumption that you and your employer don't have at least an implicit agreement to work 40 hours a week. I can only speak for my experience in software engineering, but in all my jobs and interviews there was either that implicit agreement or if you pressed it was explicitly stated that you worked near 40 hours a week normally and then overtime if required. Maybe there are jobs where what your required to do is very narrowly defined, but I can't imagine a job posting for a admin assistant that only defines the job as answering phones and not copying stuff as was argued above.
Also this is from the first page, but since when if lunch counted in your hours worked? 9 - 6 with an hour lunch is a 40 hour work week, not 45 hours.
A lot of call centers are outsourced. The call center gets paid by the closed ticket(and typically penalized for crap like abandoned calls). It makes sense that closing tickets would be a main metric, so long as the other requirements of their customer are met. The metrics and outsourced call center want aren't necessarily the same as the ones management would want to see from an in house help desk. There's no motivation when you are outsourced to educate the customer about how not to have to call in again. Taking that extra time when you are in-house, will save the company money down the road. That costs an outsourced call center money.
Yeah that's pretty much me alright. In fact I'm here on my day off getting Active Directory installed. Weee!
I'm supposed to be a programmer.
So start looking for another job, get an offer, and use that as leverage to ask for more money. Or use your next review cycle to ask for a raise/bigger raise. If you accept it and just complain there is almost zero downside for your employer.