Greece - 6 day working week
- Thread starter 413x
- Start date
Absolute drivel again. Bravo.
Caporegime
Depends on how you live and what the "work" is. It is not like work kills you. You do a task and get paid for it.
remembering recent history in a thread seems a common flaw in the voting public too. (too cryptic ?)
e: or if you do google .. keep you concentration to live to fish another day
Last edited:
I mean ive done it when projects are on the go, but to do it full time just isn't feasible long term, especially with a family. There just isnt enough time left for a good work/life balance imo
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,557
Who would think working with heavy machinery on the open seas could be dangerous?
But that doesn't have to be high individualised hours. For example, I've worked for BAE (who "actually make things") and they'd rather have four employees doing 35 hrs each than three employees doing 48 each (and I can guarantee 4x35 productivity is significantly higher than 3x48). Benefits of a unionised workplace as well I suppose.
I understand that one man bands (i.e. tradies) or micro businesses (i.e. <10 employees) can't leverage the same benefits of workforce scaling that sme's and larger businesses can.
Last edited:
I have some knowledge of that company and at least in one part of the business they are currently paying out masses of overtime because they can't get enough skilled engineers/ other staff to keep up with the amount of work they have despite having a quite large in house apprenticeship program.
So more staff working fewer hours isn't an accurate reflection of what's going on, in at least some parts of the business, 'making stuff' to get the job done.
And in the wider sense employees cost far more than their wage alone would suggest.
Typically at least double to triple their wage when training, pensions and other tax costs and support structures are factored in.
Last edited:
I said "they'd rather have four employees doing 35 hrs each than three employees doing 48 each", not that they'd actually managed it
I was an early career (inc degree apprentices) and leadership coach for them, I know full well the challenges that sector is facing re. recruitment.
Last edited:
I said "they'd rather have four employees doing 35 hrs each than three employees doing 48 each", not that they'd actually managed it
I was an early career (inc degree apprentices) and leadership coach for them, I know full well the challenges that sector is facing re. recruitment.
But they seem to think their getting more work done by paying staff overtime rather than have them work fewer hours on the assumption they will be much more efficient so your productivity claim...
"I can guarantee 4x35 productivity is significantly higher than 3x48"
... doesn't stack up unless BAE are operating their business incorrectly!
The productivity per hour may decrease a bit but it appears that more hours more than makes up for this.
Last edited:
You've misunderstood - I stated that they would rather have four staff working 35 hrs each than three staff working 48 hrs each.
Productivity per hour noticeably dips after around 32 hrs so it stands to reason that 4x35 (140 total) is more productive overall than 3x48 (144 total).
Last edited:
I think your confusing who "they" is....
Because 'they' appear to be the union! (Who I know swing rather a lot of power at an effective monopoly provider with pretty much guaranteed work from the state)
Because it's 140 vs 144 hours between the two and so the difference in total hours worked is small, as a percentage, and as outlined the business clearly think more total hours worked, per employee, does actually equate to a sufficent amount of extra 'stuff' made!
Basically the 'we can all work four days a week' (or less) and be so much more productive to make up for not working five days (or more) mantra is demonstrable nonsence in pretty much most areas of work.
Last edited:
When I say "they" I don't mean the union. I worked closely with hiring managers and resource leads, my observations are from thier perspective.
I've just dug out some data, and I need to be careful due to confidentiality, but 4x35 is roughly 20% more productive versus 3x48.
I don't know what your trying to say with the rest of your post and it's not related to my original post anyway. I'm also certainly not going to get drawn into a discussion on unions (esp as you are quite clearly presenting a bias).
Last edited:
This is demonstrable nonsense!.
Let's say the 48 hour workers produce 1 unit of 'stuff' per hour.
Then 3 of them would produce 144 units of stuff in a 48 hour week or 48 unit of stuff per worker per week.
Now take your four workers working 35 hours. They would produce 168 unit of stuff per week collectively, at 1.2 units of stuff per hour (20% more productive as you claim). Or 42 units each per week.
So you have 33% more staff producing 87.5% of the output of the alternative, per person per week!
All whilst costing the business a shed load more in training, pensions and ancillary costs.
Companies pay staff to work longer hours for mostly good reasons.
I'll maintain my postion that you're not an objective observer of what's preferred by BAE, as a company, vs what's preffered by the typical worker and the union when it comes to contracted hours.
Last edited:
Associate
Looks to me all Greece have done is change the maximum weekly hours to be the same as us and the EU that has 48 hours in the working time directive. It was 40 before in Greece. Doesn't mean everyone forced to do 6 days, but people can do extra overtime regularly if they want.
I'm out.
Because your claims didn't match the reality did they.....
Namely that 33% more staff being 20% more productive, per hour, (as per your claims) for working a 35 hour week vs 48 hour one doesn't make sense, for an employer, when each employee will typically cost *at least double* (likely more in highly skilled defence work) their wage in total costs to a business!
Last edited:
Soldato
I work 12hr shifts (1000-2200) 4 on/4 off.