Long hours

If long hours are so bad for productivity, why do so many companies have them?

For example, if fewer hours led to more productivity, I would expect a consulting firm that had sane hours to beat McKinsey but that’s just not happening. Or a family-friendly logistics company to beat Amazon.

So are the studies wrong or what?

so, you’re saying cut the billable hour goals in half, hire twice as many people and pay them the same and get more output?

1 Like

yup, short hours are the way to go

The idea is you just limit the hours to say 35 a week and the employee gets just as much work if not more done, than if they worked 80 hours a week.

even works at 5!

1 Like

Seems like it would work in Japan where a large amount of time seems to be spent waiting for your boss to go home.

1 Like

I don’t think anyone wants to go home inJapan. they want to DRINK

we don’t punch a clock, so not sure how this is meaningful at all. if i limit my hours to 35 a week i’m not magically more productive.

You would be more well-rested and that’s the idea.

Over the long term, you probably would be due to less burnout, fewer illnesses, and lower stress levels. It obviously may not apply to any particular individual, but on the company level studies are pretty conclusive that capping at 30-35 hours is better. I’ve read of a few European countries that are trialing 4 day weeks based on it.

Makes sense, but where is the market-leading investment bank that only works its employees 35 hours a week?

1 Like

nobody is forcing me to work more than 35 hours a week though. as i said, we don’t punch a clock, so what you’re saying is meaningless.

News flash — capitalists don’t care about the long term health of their employees. They get sick, they fire them, and burnout the next group of people. Doing what is right for the long term isn’t the goal of capitalism.

we have work that needs to get done, whether it takes 30 hours or 60 hours. the only thing they can change is billable hour goals, which i think technically you can hit working no more than 35 hours a week.

so this thread is kind of meaningless. we don’t punch a clock…

You very likely may be more productive.
Folks here work 4 days a week, 7.5/day Monday-thursday, no overtime. And I’d estimate that they’re at least, if not more, productive than someone working the 40hour/week grind.
Everyone’s pretty much working at 100%, all four days. I encourage them to take breaks when they need to, so they can go for a walk mid day or whatever (doesn’t come out of their time). But there is 0% bullshit, filling in time, not working at peak productivity, etc.
I used to work in a large corp. environment. I know the bullshit that goes on and actively participated. Getting a coffee from the coffee machine is a 20 minute task. Lunch a bit early, or come back a bit late. Office chatter. Add it all up, and best case people in those environments are working at 60-80% efficiencey, and having to show up at the office on fridays.
it’s a whole new ballgame when you’re done work every thursday at 4.

1 Like

There is very little actuarial work that ‘needs to get done’ other than due to artificially created deadlines meant to create a panic response in employees to increase their stress levels and get more work out of them at the cost of their long term health.

We aren’t saving lives. We are moving numbers around. It can wait another day or two.

1 Like

we don’t go to an office, so it’s on you if you’re bullshitting. there isn’t face time when you’re wfh. so again, meaningless thread.

what? you don’t freaking even work for my company. it’s not “artificially created deadlines”. we need to get work done annually. it’s not artificial. my god…

we have plans that are going insolvent. we have to apply for financial assistance. this is not an “artificial deadline”. if you have an entirely meaningless job good for you. don’t assume we all do.

“There are no pension emergencies.”