Apple employee spouse stages wacky weekend protest - Page 2

No indeed this would create more problems than it solves. However, there are two things here...first how did the organization get itself into this position in the first place? Was it forseeable? Was it avoidable? How? Why? No one ever asks these questions. The second issue is that this MIGHT be a temporary, short-term scenario. Fine. I am talking about the persistent treadmill of long days, no weekends, even eliminated holidays. I have seen this more times than I care to count.

That seems to be the aspect of software development that is particular to it and also a detriment as well. As I would have suspected, you can't just start hiring new programmers to offset the increasing workload as deadlines approach. This leaves you with the options of either extending the deadlines, which will leave the company at a competitive disadvantage, or temporarily increasing the burden on the existing workforce.

I will most certainly agree that at some point, you get diminishing returns on the productivity of an individual the longer he works. So I guess the problem is how to solve worker "burnout" when at some point the hours become too much yet simply adding more workers isn't an effective solution.

Titles, names, word...these have meanings...and sometimes the distinctions are subtle and sometimes not. Words have a purpose...they can change the way things are. Perhaps you ought to pay more attention to them. Our culture is think with carefully chosen words and phrases designed to move things in direction or another. Sometimes the matters are more trivial than others. But to ignore or trivialize them is just stupid. It assumes they mean nothing and this is clearly not true.

Some examples:

"pro-abortion" / "pro-choice"
"anti-abortion" / "pro-life"
"personnel" / "human resources"
"identity theft" / "fraudulent mis-representation"
"ethnic cleansing" / "genocide"
"assets" / "human beings dressed in uniforms and carrying weapons"
"servicing a target" / "killing"
"embryo" / "unborn child"

Or a personal favorite:

"rightsizing" / "layoffs"

Words have meanings and these are often quite deliberate and purposeful.

Here is a relevant link: http://www.propagandacritic.com/arti...euphemism.html

Well, I agree that "pro-choice" doesn't equal "pro-abortion," but I don't see the need to distinguish between a personnel office and a human resources office. An employee is an employee, and they are both employed for the purpose of making a company money. In my mind, it is only marketing or an attempt to boost image (as in calling a janitor a custodial engineer). It's the same thing.

edit: and as I said, not something I really spend time worrying about.

Exactly. Crunch times are a symptom of poor planning. Extended overtime is nothing but poor management.

And that is why the employees need to walk out if the employment becomes unacceptable. A company that cannot keep skilled employees will either have to change its practices or go out of business. I understand that it is no easy thing, but if the labor market doesn't force change then there won't be any. Unions did a great job of this in early parts of the last century and before, but modern unions come across more as extortion rackets, so I'm pretty much anti-union these days. In any case, I am absolutely opposed to government interfering in the legitimate agreements between private individuals and entities, so I don't agree with minimum wages and mandatory overtime (as you probably already figured out ).

Or "smart" management

So you spend time and money on training new employees that you don't currently need, just in case you might need them down the road? Wow, that is quite the economical approach.

Well that was utterly missing the point.

Crunch times are a sign that the schedule was fucked up from the beginning. ie, it should have been fixed in the early stages so that it didn't happen. That's poor management. Demand more up front, sooner milestones, and hire a small number of people for the additional *constant* workload.

I mean come on... crunch times *always* happen. It's not like they're unexpected. And management always seems to get 'surprised' by them? Bullshit.

Yes, I agree. Though, sometimes market timing and your competition make this unavoidable as timelines get unexpectedly pushed forward.

Isn't that part of doing business? Isn't that also one of the potential risks of doing business?

Sometimes. Sometimes. Well then I wonder while this is happening ALL the time.

BTW...I am in the software (IT) business...where it seems that this problem is particularly acute.

BTW...my main problem with all of this is that most of it is unnecessary. If organizations spent some time working smarter (I know sounds cliche) they might not have to brute force things by working harder. And, frankly, I have much less of a problem with the longer hours (on occasion of course) in such a situation...if I knew we were working smarter...more productively...but the normal approach is just to brute force something...throw more hours at it...threaten people ("if you don't come in on saturday, don't bother to come in on sunday"). It is this extremely short-term thinking that bugs me the most.

Hear hear.

The random unexpected things I totally understand, and am willing to put in the extra effort, but the *planned* death marches? Fuck it. Until management, all the way to the top, is putting in the same hours for those, forget about it.

I'm not disputing that is causes a problem for many and in many cases there probably is a solution, but it's hardly a problem particular to IT.

I can remember thirteen hour days, seven days a weeks during a nine month deployment with NO days off. All while making $1600 a month. Some jobs have it a lot worse.

I wholeheartedly agree. Threatening good employees is poor business practice, and will (and should) ruin that companies reputation as an employer.

Yeah, brining this back to Apple, they have a fairly fixed release schedule for operating system updates. So if their employees are truly being worked beyond reason (I still won't concede that forty hours is a lot to work though ), then I agree they need to hire more programmers.

Of this there is no doubt. But let me ask this...were you married? Kids? How did that feel? How did THEY feel? You were in the Marines. Terrific. You signed up for something (and knew what you were getting into)...perhaps you were even deployed at a time when our country needed something more...this is a noble sacrifice. Now translate that same work situation to a case where someone just refuses to plan...and the "cause" is nothing more that making senior management wealthier. Of course it is never quite this simple...but the point is still the same. Your work/service to our nation is noble and respectable...but how would you feel if that service was in the name of...say...oil...personal (or family) vendettas...political gain...but not truly for the safety and security of the nation?

Would you feel cheated? Betrayed? Used? Exploited?

Oh jesus. AppleOutsider *NOW* please.

Is that necessary?

I think his question was what personal success was, not personal success in business.
I agree totally with this. If the company honestly tells you the conditions and expectations and you accept then that's that. What's your experience with the company being totally honest?
I must be misunderstainding you I think. If you needed money, you'd rather work 60 hours and get paid for 35, than work 2 jobs and get paid for all your hours? (because the first one won't let you work more than 35). I don't get it.
Yeah temps won't help. But I think most people agreed that putting in unpaid overtime for special deadlines was quite acceptable.

Quite a response this thread has provoked. I think the magnitude of response is quite telling even though there is much disaggreement.

What it seems to indicate is that a fairly significant percentage of the workforce is disatisfied or angered by something related to the topic of workload.

Upon reading this thread, I sat back and ponedered the current state of corporate staffing, overtime pay, bennefits, and the spread between a company's highest and lowest paid employees. After much thought, I failed to reach any hard conclusions. In particular, I found it hard to put current conditions into a historical context. Just as an example, prior to second half of the 20th century, women were only a tiny percentage of the workforce. Commuting by car has also changed the burden of being employed. The list could go on and on.

So... while I can't decide if general disatisfaction amoung workers is justified, I will at least acknowledge it's existnace. Also unkown to me is whether this is a new phenomenon or if employees always complain with such enthusiasm.

Now for my sentiments:

I think that the distribution of wealth is headed in the wrong direction. The poor are getting poorer and have less leverage to change their situation than in the past. The rich are getting richer and are better equipped to further their interests.

It appears that because of the interaction of numerous modern influences, we may again need organizations to represent the interests of the less fortunate. The wealthy are benefiting the most from us having a society and economy rather than chaos and anarchy. The poor, when shorted by the system, come out worse than if they were subsistence farmers. The economy is currently doing fabulous... but still the poor are more likely to be in dept while working multiple jobs with no benefits and long hours.

Thus, I think that we need unions in the software industry. Adding employees late in the game to a software development project is less effective than similar tactics in other industries. Ten years ago I would have scoffed at such a suggestion. Now, software-dev unions seem like a no-brainer. Or maybe thats just my overworked wrists and my repetitive strain talking.

Where's my megaphone and dog at?

Yup, this is definitely AO material. We've had politics and now religion pulled in. Brother. Talk about going downhill fast.

I would have preferred to hear someones husband brought in mad ammounts of free food or somethign for the hardworking people over at Apple HQ, oh well

You're joking right?

The hubby should foot the bill for a bunch of free food...simply encouraging more of the same?

More like Apple ought to (and maybe is...assuming all of this about Apple is true...and it probably is) be buying meals for everyone they expect to work through dinner/lunch/etc.

Of course...that might be a bit too generous.

It's all a question of balance. If workers USUALLY work less than 45 hours or so, and ON OCCASION they need to meet deadlines and stay late, then by all means, they should stay late. But if workers are working until 8pm or later 15 days out of 20 in a month, and even coming in on Saturday, then the employer needs to hire more staff. Unfortunately, there are too many employees who are submissive and work until 8pm, allowing employers to get away with hiring fewer employees and overworking those they employ.

Sorry. Most people who get paid hourly wages are, by law, required to make "time and a half" for anything past forty hours. This is why they very rarely are allowed to work past forty, because of the increased cost to the employer. So the person ends up getting a second job to make up the difference. But, if there was no mandatory overtime pay, a person could work more hours at a single job, because the employer would only have to pay for the hours worked at one rate, not 40 plus overtime. A lot of these jobs won't even schedule you for a full forty, because they don't want you to go over.

Hourly overtime was mandated to artificially reduce unemployment rates and lower the burden on workers. Too bad the people who create these policies didn't look past their immediate result to see the side effects, because it helps contribute to neither.

Please explain how enforced working hours doesn't help unemployment.

Unless you have a real fiscal management problem no one should need a second job if they work 40 h/w

Erm... I think you're missing a small but crucially important point here. In many of the cases that are being described here, and certainly with the EA case, the people aren't getting paid for the overtime AT ALL, not even at their regular rate let alone time and a half. At EA, they give their time to their employers for free, and the management has declared it MANDATORY.

I think the management there expect people to walk in with stickers on their foreheads saying 'Buy 2 Hours, Get 1 Free'.

Kinda puts a different spin on it, doesn't it?

Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel

then EA is breaking the law of the country, and it should be reported to the Labor Department for breaking the law.

The LAW requires, no exceptions, the employer to pay 1.5 of regular pay for EVERY overtime hour. That's it.

That's not true. That law only applies to persons making hourly wage, who are making less than a certain amount, and who are not considered working in a "management" capacity. We had a thread on this when the law was changed a few months back.

Heh, back to the topic ....

There was a meeting maybe a month ago, and in that .. while it seemed it might end later than planned, M pretty much told the other (local)s attending the meeting, that no matter if it was going to end at 3, 4, 5, or later, I would come there no later than 10 past 3, and simply drag him out of there. They could well imagine that happening. Didn't have to, that time. But I would have done that.

Obviously this is belonging to AO, even if it's Apple related (gosh I am starting to speak like a politician ... )

Well, lets take a typical retail job. We'll give you an hourly salary of $8.50 an hour.

So let's see here... $8.50 x 40 = $340.00 x 52 = $17,680.00 a year.

So now we'll take out taxes: $17,680.00 - $4,596.00 = $13,084.00 net income a year.

Whoops! Looks like you'll be getting a second job.

Simple.

A company requires an employee for 60 hours worth of weekly work. Well, since the employer would have to pay 1.5 the person's salary for all hours past forty. It is cheaper to hire two part-time employees who only work 30 hours apiece.

Well great you say, two people now have jobs. But, you are failing to look past the immediate result of the newly create jobs, just like everybody else who supports these progressive policies.

Because neither of the two part-time employees can live off the salary from the one job, they must now get a second (or third) job. So you have two people each working two job, which results is no change in unemployment. In addition, you also have the effect of creating an excess burden on the two people because instead of a single work schedule, they each have to juggle the schedules of two jobs (which might also end up reducing the overall availability for each).

Good policy should be based on more than just good intentions, because the people proposing them usually don't look past the immediate, narrow result they desire.

edit: So with four jobs being taken up by only two people, you actually have the potential for an increase in unemployment. That might not necessarily be the result in real life, but the potential is certainly there.

A wee be too simple?



Let's change the scenario. Let's make it 2 people working 60 hours a week (each)...on a regular basis. Now you have a 3rd job...full-time...not two part-time jobs.

If there is one person in an organization that is regularly working 60 hours a week, this might not really be an organizational problem and your argument holds more water. However if there are many people in an organization that are consistently working these hours, then perhaps there is an organizational understaffing problem, or, at the very least a productivity issue. I would attempt to address the productivity issue first, and then the staffing level.

Quite frankly the continually overtime forces neither issue to be addressed...because it isn't really costing the organization anything...they are (in more cases now than a few months ago) getting the extra work for free. No incentive whatsoever to become more productive or add staff.

Now the "become more productive" part can be shared by employee and employer...however, the employee is often the weaker party here...they might not have access to the resources, authority or time (leeway) to work at making themselves more productive. The employer (and I've seen a lot of this) is demanding so much in such unreasonable timetables that stopping to "work smarter" is completely out of the question...so the treadmill continues.

Again I voice my own frustration over seeing how we can be more productive and (largely) being prevented from making changes to do so. Don't tell me to go get another job. I just did that. The new place might be better...still hard to tell...it is early yet. I am working on it (of course)...but there is great pressure against being productive...it is the tyranny of the urgent that always seems to win.

You are right that quitting is an option...but a weak one in many cases. Much depends on the economy, of course, but also much depends on the balance of power, money, etc. Currently there seems to be an acute mis-balance of power and wealth in favor of large corporations. This obviously skews things in their favor. It is (relatively) much less risky and (relatively) much easier to pickup 500 or 1000 jobs and ship them to India than for an individual (or family) to even move to another state. And this is only one example. Lack of medical insurance mobility (or afforable medical insurance outside of corporate group plans) are another factor.

Well, we can play that game with different sets of numbers all day long.

The point is that mandatory unemployment pay for hourly employees DOES create the side-effect of forcing people to hold two jobs because they might need more money than the 40 provides but the employer won't let them work more. This might not apply to YOU but there are a lot a people who it does.

So even if only 2 of the 3 in your revised example decide they need a second job because the first one just doesn't pay the bills, you still have 3 people holding 5 jobs. And you still have a net loss of 2 jobs that others could be filling. You must have skipped economics class on the way to that computer science degree.

BTW, there are 168 hours in a week. 41 is not 1 too many to be spending at work, since it is that work which pays for the remaining 127. This whole, arbitrary, 40 hour work week is nonsense. 70 hours a week might be too much for most people, but I call those who are only willing to work 40 lazy (unless they are retired of course).

Ah...I see...when you offer a scenario, it is an argument...when someone else does it is "playing games".


But I'm talking about people that get NO overtime pay whatsoever. They are just giving away their time for free.



So what you're really talking about is the normal working jobs that do not pay enough.


Wrong again. This is becoming a habit for you.



Let's see here...

168 total hours every week

minus an average of 9 hours per day (63 per week) to sleep and get ready from/for sleep.

minus an average of 2 hours per day (14 per week) to eat 3 meals a day.

(down to 91 hours at this point)

minus an average commute time of 1 hours per day (5 per week).

Now you really have 86 hours.

Take out 40 hours for work and you have 46 hours remaining for leisure, relaxation (other than sleep), entertainment, family time (do you have a family?), church time, etc.

Your 168 is not the whole story (as usual). Oh, and by the way, no one here was walking abut working 41 hours vs. 40 hours...or even 45 hours...or even 50 hours...but rather (once again I must say this)...consistently and regularly working 60 hours (or more) per week.


Of course you do...and you know best...once again reverting to these trite characterizations of "hard working capitalist" vs. "lazy, back-sliding communist".

I was not aware that salaried employees worked "overtime." Overtime applies to those who get paid by the hour. If your salary does not compensate you enough for the hours you do work, then perhaps you need to re-negotiate your salary or the terms of your employment.


Not everybody makes $70k a year sitting behind a computer. And those people by far outnumber the ones who do.

Most of those job probably do pay "enough" for the skills required and the duties to be performed. But the person might not be earning enough to meet their needs. Your choice of phasing tells a lot about your opinions (as do mine to be sure).


Well then prove it (I mean that figuratively, just to clarify). Stop assuming that everybody would be just hunky dory if only allowed to work 40 hours a week. My argument was that mandatory overtime pay for hourly workers actually contributes to unemployment and adds an additional burden on many of those workers. It had nothing to do with your particular needs or circumstance, and your example did nothing to refute my claim and only reinforced your view that any job that lasts more than 40 hours a week is poorly managed.


Well, I'm not sure your averages are really the average for most people. I don't know too many working adults who sleep for nine hours each day, or require two hours to eat (in fact, many people watch television, spend time with family or do other leisurely activities while they are eating or preparing to eat).


Being lazy does not make you a communist. But believing that everybody deserves a job and that my working "overtime" is somehow stealing that deserved job from somebody else is sure leaning hard in that direction.

I still stand by my assertion that, unless you are retired or otherwise don't need the money, if a person is unwilling to work more than 40 hours a week at a job, he either has no ambition or is lazy.