Standard 40-hour work week?

I swung by the Science Center in California this past Saturday, and they were open until 9:00 PM. On Sundays, they're running from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM. Look, ovhere you can check it yourself if you want. I have zero issues shopping in Trieste on Saturdays, morning or afternoon.

briskdrifter3 said:Everywhere I've traveled across Europe, shops would wrap things up by 6:00 PM, maybe 7:00 PM at the latest... they might stay open for a few hours on Saturday, but on Sunday? Absolutely nothing is open.

Well, clearly you weren't traveling all that much, and honestly, it sounds like it was a lifetime ago anyway... 😁

Quincy:

briskdrifter3 As follows: Do you actually see children's photos popping up in your work inbox? And more importantly, do you find that acceptable?

No, it's actually worse than that. They’re going to be dragging a nine-year-old along to oil rigs and wherever else they work—mellowraven8 style. 🙂

Quincy:

briskdrifter3 As requested: You have packed this nine-year-old's schedule with one thing after another, yet you haven't stopped to consider when he might actually get to just be a child, free from the weight of constant obligations.

A nine-year-old is certainly old enough to take up certain activities, though I suppose that depends entirely on the individual child. Regardless, that isn't quite what we are here to discuss.

briskdrifter3 said:So, you see your kids only when they email photos to your office? And you're perfectly fine with that?
You've packed a nine-year-old's life with endless commitments, but do you ever stop to ask when he actually gets to just be a kid—to play without a schedule? Or have you already conditioned him to reject play entirely? If that's the case, you're raising a little monster who will grow up to sit in some corporate corner office, terrorizing decent people who actually value family life over bleeding themselves dry for a company.
You are, quite frankly, a byproduct of this capitalist machine... though I suspect you haven't even realized it...

goldengull3 touched on this already, but I'll add my two cents: I'm raising my kid to value education and hard work. It's high on our list of priorities.

With a schedule like his, he's certainly not out roaming the streets aimlessly all day, which seems to be how some other parents handle things.
Sure, he plays with kids his age, but only after his responsibilities are handled.
For the record, the little guy actually wanted to take German classes and play soccer on top of everything else, but my wife and I said no. We figured it was a bit much for his age.
Once he grows up a bit, maybe we'll look at German. For now, no.

We jump on Skype regularly while I'm at work. Honestly, I think he's happy and proud of what he achieves.
And he's encouraged and motivated to reach those goals. Everything he gets, he earns. He has everything a child could need.
You think it's better to just hand things to him for nothing? I don't. That's how you raise a spoiled brat who can't function in the real world and can't even be bothered to get off his ass.
When I'm on vacation (I get four 38-day stretches a year), we spend as much time together as possible.
That includes hiking, sports, and just talking... so he isn't missing out on anything.

The local mindset here is pretty grim, honestly. Growing up, most of us are taught that we're the best, smartest, and that our country is perfect and everything will always be great while we just lounge under trees.

I subscribe to the Japanese approach: without education and effort, you have nothing.
Then, when we're on vacation, we actually enjoy life and our hobbies.

As for working hours—I've worked in the States from 6 AM to 10 PM when necessary (even while finishing school), and I didn't mind it one bit.

If someone wants to work less, they should find a job that allows it. Four hours or eight hours, whatever.

But trying to pass laws banning any work over 40 hours a week? Total nonsense.

mellowraven8 said:goldengull3 touched on this already, but I'll add my two cents: I'm raising my kid to value education and hard work. It's high on our list of priorities.

With a schedule like his, he's certainly not out roaming the streets aimlessly all day, which seems to be how some other parents handle things.
Sure, he plays with kids his age, but only after his responsibilities are handled.
For the record, the little guy actually wanted to take German classes and play soccer on top of everything else, but my wife and I said no. We figured it was a bit much for his age.
Once he grows up a bit, maybe we'll look at German. For now, no.

We jump on Skype regularly while I'm at work. Honestly, I think he's happy and proud of what he achieves.
And he's encouraged and motivated to reach those goals. Everything he gets, he earns. He has everything a child could need.
You think it's better to just hand things to him for nothing? I don't. That's how you raise a spoiled brat who can't function in the real world and can't even be bothered to get off his ass.
When I'm on vacation (I get four 38-day stretches a year), we spend as much time together as possible.
That includes hiking, sports, and just talking... so he isn't missing out on anything.

The local mindset here is pretty grim, honestly. Growing up, most of us are taught that we're the best, smartest, and that our country is perfect and everything will always be great while we just lounge under trees.

I subscribe to the Japanese approach: without education and effort, you have nothing.
Then, when we're on vacation, we actually enjoy life and our hobbies.

As for working hours—I've worked in the States from 6 AM to 10 PM when necessary (even while finishing school), and I didn't mind it one bit.

If someone wants to work less, they should find a job that allows it. Four hours or eight hours, whatever.

But trying to pass laws banning any work over 40 hours a week? Total nonsense.

Dammit, some things have to be regulated by law; otherwise, competition laws end up stripping away all worker rights. We have 300,000 unemployed people (and I suspect that number will hit 400,000 soon), and if these kinds of matters were left solely to negotiations between employees and employers, most workers would be forced to choose between working 16 hours a day for minimum wage with no weekends or vacation, or heading back to the unemployment office.

Personally, I wouldn't strictly regulate weekly hours, but rather mandate that anything over 160 hours a month must be paid at double time.

Nicole James said:Dammit, some things have to be regulated by law; otherwise, competition laws end up stripping away all worker rights. We have 300,000 unemployed people (and I suspect that number will hit 400,000 soon), and if these kinds of matters were left solely to negotiations between employees and employers, most workers would be forced to choose between working 16 hours a day for minimum wage with no weekends or vacation, or heading back to the unemployment office.

Personally, I wouldn't strictly regulate weekly hours, but rather mandate that anything over 160 hours a month must be paid at double time.

I’m all for higher hourly rates, actually.
If it makes the math stop working for the boss, they should just hire more people.

The real headache is figuring out how to set that rate.

Do you just take the gross salary and divide it by total working hours?

That wouldn't do much good for anyone in the private sector, especially given how many people still get half their pay under the table.

Maybe if the government mandated a minimum overtime rate, it might actually work.

But then you run into the old question: whose time is worth more? That's a debate that never ends.
We'd probably end up basing it on education levels, much like how they set the federal minimum wage.

Honestly, these discussions invariably spiral toward those exhausting extremes—the cartoonishly evil employer versus the pathologically lazy employee.
What if we consider a scenario where an employer demands overtime and is perfectly willing to pay the premium, yet the worker simply values their personal time more than any incremental increase in their paycheck?🤷

I might sound blunt here, but let's be real—if someone can't handle this, they aren't going to last long in that role anyway. It’s clearly just not their scene.

That's just how things work in the real world.

mellowraven8 said:I might sound blunt here, but let's be real—if someone can't handle this, they aren't going to last long in that role anyway. It’s clearly just not their scene.

That's just how things work in the real world.

So, you're suggesting that in the real world, an employee doesn't actually get to decide whether they want a life outside of their job, but rather, it's entirely dependent on how well their employer manages their organizational structure?

copperjackal89 said:So, you're suggesting that in the real world, an employee doesn't actually get to decide whether they want a life outside of their job, but rather, it's entirely dependent on how well their employer manages their organizational structure?

In reality, if a worker is strictly committed to a standard 9-to-5 schedule, they need to be smart about the career paths they pursue. You look toward civil service or banking—though I’d steer clear of healthcare—and you absolutely stay away from system administration. Those IT types are almost always stuck running system updates in the middle of the night or over the weekend.

If you refuse to put in overtime when there's actual pay involved—and assuming you don't have a toddler waiting at daycare—you are effectively capping your own growth and promotion potential. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the landscape we live in. My advice is to choose a role based on your specific lifestyle needs: an administrative assistant gets fixed hours, an IT specialist gets flexibility, and a contractor gets to be their own boss.

For my part, due to some personal priorities—specifically carving out time for research and writing articles—the corporate grind no longer serves my long-term interests. I'm currently looking for a position within a university or a scientific research institution. Once a suitable opening appears, I'll give my colleagues a polite farewell, shake my manager's hand, and move on to a place where I can spend more time tucked away in a library focusing on my studies. I am fully aware that the paycheck will be smaller.

goldengull3 said:In reality, if a worker is strictly committed to a standard 9-to-5 schedule, they need to be smart about the career paths they pursue. You look toward civil service or banking—though I’d steer clear of healthcare—and you absolutely stay away from system administration. Those IT types are almost always stuck running system updates in the middle of the night or over the weekend.

If you refuse to put in overtime when there's actual pay involved—and assuming you don't have a toddler waiting at daycare—you are effectively capping your own growth and promotion potential. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the landscape we live in. My advice is to choose a role based on your specific lifestyle needs: an administrative assistant gets fixed hours, an IT specialist gets flexibility, and a contractor gets to be their own boss.

For my part, due to some personal priorities—specifically carving out time for research and writing articles—the corporate grind no longer serves my long-term interests. I'm currently looking for a position within a university or a scientific research institution. Once a suitable opening appears, I'll give my colleagues a polite farewell, shake my manager's hand, and move on to a place where I can spend more time tucked away in a library focusing on my studies. I am fully aware that the paycheck will be smaller.

So, refusing unpaid overtime will indeed stunt your career progression, and even rejecting paid hours won't help much.😬

Let us be perfectly clear here: I make a sharp distinction between overtime necessitated by a specific "event"—such as an enterprise system upgrade, a sudden surge in volume due to xy, or those unpredictable project complications paired with a brutal deadline—and the kind of chronic overtime required just to meet the bare minimum expectations of an employer. In companies where half the staff is working excessive hours on a continuous basis, it is patently obvious that the overtime isn't being properly compensated, whether through cash or time off; if it were, it would simply be more cost-effective for the employer to hire additional staff.

goldengull3 said:In reality, if a worker is strictly committed to a standard 9-to-5 schedule, they need to be smart about the career paths they pursue. You look toward civil service or banking—though I’d steer clear of healthcare—and you absolutely stay away from system administration. Those IT types are almost always stuck running system updates in the middle of the night or over the weekend.

If you refuse to put in overtime when there's actual pay involved—and assuming you don't have a toddler waiting at daycare—you are effectively capping your own growth and promotion potential. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the landscape we live in. My advice is to choose a role based on your specific lifestyle needs: an administrative assistant gets fixed hours, an IT specialist gets flexibility, and a contractor gets to be their own boss.

For my part, due to some personal priorities—specifically carving out time for research and writing articles—the corporate grind no longer serves my long-term interests. I'm currently looking for a position within a university or a scientific research institution. Once a suitable opening appears, I'll give my colleagues a polite farewell, shake my manager's hand, and move on to a place where I can spend more time tucked away in a library focusing on my studies. I am fully aware that the paycheck will be smaller.

Flexible scheduling is often just an inherent characteristic of certain roles, and I don't consider those intense periods where you have to "grind" to be true overtime, provided they are balanced out by a lighter workload during the quieter stretches.🙂 For instance, if you have a systems administrator who spends their weekend fixing a server, it stands to reason they might work shorter days during the week, or perhaps stay home and remain "on call" if everything falls apart again.

goldengull3 said:In reality, if a worker is strictly committed to a standard 9-to-5 schedule, they need to be smart about the career paths they pursue. You look toward civil service or banking—though I’d steer clear of healthcare—and you absolutely stay away from system administration. Those IT types are almost always stuck running system updates in the middle of the night or over the weekend.

If you refuse to put in overtime when there's actual pay involved—and assuming you don't have a toddler waiting at daycare—you are effectively capping your own growth and promotion potential. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the landscape we live in. My advice is to choose a role based on your specific lifestyle needs: an administrative assistant gets fixed hours, an IT specialist gets flexibility, and a contractor gets to be their own boss.

For my part, due to some personal priorities—specifically carving out time for research and writing articles—the corporate grind no longer serves my long-term interests. I'm currently looking for a position within a university or a scientific research institution. Once a suitable opening appears, I'll give my colleagues a polite farewell, shake my manager's hand, and move on to a place where I can spend more time tucked away in a library focusing on my studies. I am fully aware that the paycheck will be smaller.

But at least the paycheck comes from the federal government, which offers a level of security nothing else can match.😉
It is quite fascinating, really; in the rest of the world, scientific institutions are places of relentless labor, whereas here, they serve merely as a safe harbor for the exhausted warrior.😬

copperjackal89 said:So, refusing unpaid overtime will indeed stunt your career progression, and even rejecting paid hours won't help much.😬

Let us be perfectly clear here: I make a sharp distinction between overtime necessitated by a specific "event"—such as an enterprise system upgrade, a sudden surge in volume due to xy, or those unpredictable project complications paired with a brutal deadline—and the kind of chronic overtime required just to meet the bare minimum expectations of an employer. In companies where half the staff is working excessive hours on a continuous basis, it is patently obvious that the overtime isn't being properly compensated, whether through cash or time off; if it were, it would simply be more cost-effective for the employer to hire additional staff.

Flexible scheduling is often just an inherent characteristic of certain roles, and I don't consider those intense periods where you have to "grind" to be true overtime, provided they are balanced out by a lighter workload during the quieter stretches.🙂 For instance, if you have a systems administrator who spends their weekend fixing a server, it stands to reason they might work shorter days during the week, or perhaps stay home and remain "on call" if everything falls apart again.

But at least the paycheck comes from the federal government, which offers a level of security nothing else can match.😉
It is quite fascinating, really; in the rest of the world, scientific institutions are places of relentless labor, whereas here, they serve merely as a safe harbor for the exhausted warrior.😬

In the modern era, debating standard working hours for many professions feels like an archaic pursuit. For most roles in Big Tech, nobody even asks about your schedule; you have a scope of work, and you manage your own rhythm accordingly. It’s the same in academia, and similarly true in R&D. You simply cannot force everything into that rigid 8+8+8 framework—that's a relic from the late 19th century.

copperjackal89 said:So, refusing unpaid overtime will indeed stunt your career progression, and even rejecting paid hours won't help much.😬

Let us be perfectly clear here: I make a sharp distinction between overtime necessitated by a specific "event"—such as an enterprise system upgrade, a sudden surge in volume due to xy, or those unpredictable project complications paired with a brutal deadline—and the kind of chronic overtime required just to meet the bare minimum expectations of an employer. In companies where half the staff is working excessive hours on a continuous basis, it is patently obvious that the overtime isn't being properly compensated, whether through cash or time off; if it were, it would simply be more cost-effective for the employer to hire additional staff.

Flexible scheduling is often just an inherent characteristic of certain roles, and I don't consider those intense periods where you have to "grind" to be true overtime, provided they are balanced out by a lighter workload during the quieter stretches.🙂 For instance, if you have a systems administrator who spends their weekend fixing a server, it stands to reason they might work shorter days during the week, or perhaps stay home and remain "on call" if everything falls apart again.

But at least the paycheck comes from the federal government, which offers a level of security nothing else can match.😉
It is quite fascinating, really; in the rest of the world, scientific institutions are places of relentless labor, whereas here, they serve merely as a safe harbor for the exhausted warrior.😬

And that is precisely how they operate. Besides, they hold all the cards anyway. 🙂 There is a fundamental difference between a highly specialized PhD researcher or a lead architect named specifically in a major contract, and a retail clerk at Walmart. Traditional labor protections should primarily target easily replaceable workers. We need to start differentiating worker categories along those lines.

copperjackal89 said:So, refusing unpaid overtime will indeed stunt your career progression, and even rejecting paid hours won't help much.😬

Let us be perfectly clear here: I make a sharp distinction between overtime necessitated by a specific "event"—such as an enterprise system upgrade, a sudden surge in volume due to xy, or those unpredictable project complications paired with a brutal deadline—and the kind of chronic overtime required just to meet the bare minimum expectations of an employer. In companies where half the staff is working excessive hours on a continuous basis, it is patently obvious that the overtime isn't being properly compensated, whether through cash or time off; if it were, it would simply be more cost-effective for the employer to hire additional staff.

Flexible scheduling is often just an inherent characteristic of certain roles, and I don't consider those intense periods where you have to "grind" to be true overtime, provided they are balanced out by a lighter workload during the quieter stretches.🙂 For instance, if you have a systems administrator who spends their weekend fixing a server, it stands to reason they might work shorter days during the week, or perhaps stay home and remain "on call" if everything falls apart again.

But at least the paycheck comes from the federal government, which offers a level of security nothing else can match.😉
It is quite fascinating, really; in the rest of the world, scientific institutions are places of relentless labor, whereas here, they serve merely as a safe harbor for the exhausted warrior.😬

If a functional, privately funded university or research institute ever appeared, I would be the first in line to join.