@georgetakei

Hahaha, if this is an hourly worker and he isnt paying overtime this is a completely valid response :) lol

@freemo @georgetakei Nah, it's valid no matter what kind of worker they are. The idea that we should be emotionally loyal to employers is patently absurd.

@scott_guertin

Salaried employees are expected to make a fix amount no matter how much they are paid. That is the bargain.

@georgetakei

@freemo @georgetakei That doesn't mean that they're obligated to have some sort of greater commitment to their job outside of their assigned duties.

Company loyalty is for suckers.

@scott_guertin @georgetakei @freemo Salaried employees have some very specific legal requirements that they have to accept, anything beyond that is foolishly giving away one's life to an employer that will never return such a favor.

@lispi314

They literally get that back in equal measure. While a salaried empl,oyee doesnt have fixed hours or an hourly rate, and may be expected to work extra hours for free, they also get paid time off. When they take a day or even a whole month off they still get their full pay. It works both ways.

@scott_guertin @georgetakei

@freemo @georgetakei @scott_guertin Hardly, not all moments in one's life are equal and the strain on one's body from accumulated overtime and stress is greater than the relief of a similar amount of time of rest.

So an equivalent time exchange... isn't an equivalent exchange in bodily damages. And the money is far from enough to compensate. (Nevermind that for many damaged organs one quite simply cannot buy a replacement for any amount of money.)

More to the point, there is no (reasonable) expectation of loyalty from an employer (layoffs purely for investment figures are commonplace), so why should any of the employees provide such a thing to the employer?

@lispi314

> Hardly, not all moments in one's life are equal and the strain on one's body from accumulated overtime and stress is greater than the relief of a similar amount of time of rest.

If that is true for **you** then dont take a salaried position, and make sure to take a job that doesnt involve overtime. For many of us the opposit eis true. Working overtime for extended periods and then have longer periods of time off to compensate is FAR more relaxing than working every day on a 9-5.

You do you, but dont act like **financially** speaking it doesnt work both ways.

> So an equivalent time exchange... isn't an equivalent exchange in bodily damages. And the money is far from enough to compensate. (Nevermind that for many damaged organs one quite simply cannot buy a replacement for any amount of money.)

Then work hourly and not salary if you feel that way.

> More to the point, there is no (reasonable) expectation of loyalty from an employer (layoffs purely for investment figures are commonplace), so why should any of the employees provide such a thing to the employer?

Who said anything about loyalty. The equivelant of not being able to layoff people would be saying employees cant quit. Loyalty is not expected from eithe rside.

@scott_guertin @georgetakei

@freemo @georgetakei @scott_guertin > You do you, but dont act like financially speaking it doesnt work both ways.

> Who said anything about loyalty. The equivelant of not being able to layoff people would be saying employees cant
quit. Loyalty is not expected from eithe rside.

The vast majority of people would a lot more hard-pressed to quit their job on a whim without ending-up with significant problems than their employer would be in laying them off. The power relationship is *very* strongly skewed here.

As for the earlier statement I made, it is true both for chronic work-acquired injuries and for accumulated organ-damage from stress. The perceived relaxation doesn't indicate rest remotely approaching that sufficient to compensate.

The heart itself cannot cope with all that much sleep deprivation and stress in a short period (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoshi). Unsustainable high-effort isn't sustainable, that's simply not how human bodies work.

That's not to say 9-5 is exactly healthy either, because it isn't.
Follow

@lispi314

> The vast majority of people would a lot more hard-pressed to quit their job on a whim without ending-up with significant problems than their employer would be in laying them off. The power relationship is *very* strongly skewed here.

So? I am not even sure what your disagreeing with or how you think that is relevant to any points I made.

> As for the earlier statement I made, it is true both for chronic work-acquired injuries and for accumulated organ-damage from stress. The perceived relaxation doesn't indicate rest remotely approaching that sufficient to compensate.

That makes a lot of assumptions such as the idea that work equates to stress and damage. True for some, not for others, again pick a job that offers you the right balance for you. I myself find work fun, I would and do do it for free, the fact people are willing to pay me a bunch of money to do it is simply a bonus.

> The heart itself cannot cope with all that much sleep deprivation and stress in a short period (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoshi). Unsustainable high-effort isn't sustainable, that's simply not how human bodies work.

No one is suggesting answering a call or two after hours or occasionally working a little later is the same as sleep deprivation or even a stressor, particularly when it is offset with relaxing vacations you get paid to take.

@scott_guertin @georgetakei

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.