Employers Are About to Take Back Control

[ThatRobGuy]

That's going to depend on the industry. If you work for an hourly wage where your presence is a component of the work (and therefore a reduction in worker hours per week would require the employer to hire more people), then sure. But for roles where you're simply expected to be "working" and complete your tasks on time (i.e. most office roles), then it doesn't really matter if you work 40 hours or 32 hours as long as the work gets done.

Interestingly, the largest trial of a 32-hour work week included a guarantee that pay would remain static. And it was a massive success:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/02/21/four-day-work-week-results-uk/

Yep, I've actually seen a couple different random "experiments" like that where even with a reduction in hours, people still ended up getting the same amount of work done.

I think it shows that by the "end of the day" or "end of the week", people are getting a little bit of burn-out and probably aren't giving 100% by the time they reach the 32+ hour mark and go into "Office Space" mode.

My company does the "summer hours" incentive. Where, between memorial day and labor day, as long as all deliverables are met on-time, the "summer hours" are 8:30 to 3:30 (instead of the normal 8:30 to 5:30)

It's worked pretty well, and people will hustle and put in max effort when they know it means getting to bail early when the weather's nice outside.

They've also implemented the "on-call offset". Like in most IT outfits, everyone takes their turn being the "on-call" contact for issues or client needs that happen off-hours. Any hours that you work "off-hours", gets deducted from the subsequent Friday after your done with your on-call rotation. So if you get a call and have to put in 4 hours in an evening or on the weekend, you get to bounce at noon the Friday of the following week. That's been a pretty popular one at the company as well.

 

[rjs330]

That's going to depend on the industry. If you work for an hourly wage where your presence is a component of the work (and therefore a reduction in worker hours per week would require the employer to hire more people), then sure. But for roles where you're simply expected to be "working" and complete your tasks on time (i.e. most office roles), then it doesn't really matter if you work 40 hours or 32 hours as long as the work gets done.

Interestingly, the largest trial of a 32-hour work week included a guarantee that pay would remain static. And it was a massive success:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/02/21/four-day-work-week-results-uk/

That all sounds great, but there are a LOT of businesses that couldn't do that. Not because they want to hose employees but because they can't get enough workers to fill the time when needed.

I'm all for emoyets doing it having flexible work schedules etc. As long as it doesn't become law.

 

[rjs330]

It's something that's hard to quantify exactly, but employers commit billions of dollars worth of wage theft (of which this is just one form) in the US every year.

Wage theft outpaces all other theft in America

Although many people are aware that wage theft occurs, most do not know just how common it is. In fact, many people mistakenly assume that wage theft is something that rarely happens. And many people naively believe that most instances of wage theft are just mistakes or the result of...

www.edelson-law.com

More than $3 billion in stolen wages recovered for workers between 2017 and 2020

Each year millions of workers across the country are victims of wage theft—meaning they are paid less than the full wages to which they are legally entitled. Between 2017 and 2020, more than $3 billion in stolen wages was recovered on behalf of workers by the U.S. Department of Labor, state...

www.epi.org

I see a lot of employer bashing going on. Let's balance that out a bit shall we? Employees steal about 50 billion dollars a year from their employers. Time theft is another theft. Employers lose millions a day
From employee time theft. So let's not just dump on the employers here as if employees are saints. They steal more from their employers than the employers steal from them.

30+ Surprising Employee Theft Statistics and Facts (2025 Edition)

Workplace crime is a much more serious problem than most people realize. Find out what's at stake with the help of our employee theft statistics.

www.smallbizgenius.net

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I'm not buying this actually. I believe it is against the law to do that. You cannot require someone to work more than 40 hours without paying them. It's a violation of labor law.

It's not a matter of going over 40 hrs in a work week. It's giving the worker more than 40 hrs of work but make them stay under the 40 hr work week. As a worker (as an example), how are they suppose to know stacking 2400 cans is over the 40 hr work week and 2000 is the right amount per work week? Management isn't going to tell them because if management can get them to do 2400 cans in a 40 hr work week, that's more work done in the cans dept. and we can switch that worker over to do more work in the cleaning dept. next week.

I don't know if that makes sense but that's what is happening in some companies if not many of them. Management calls it efficiency, workers call it excess work. I was programmer analyst contractor before I switched to my current job (of 30 yrs) and I remember my project manager giving me a pep talk about working. I told him that it's unreasonable to do the amount of work they require us to do in a day because many outside factors come into play - illness, financial problems, family problems pop up every so often. His response was he understands that I can't give him 120% everyday, there will be days when I can only give 100%. After 7 years of that, I got burnt out and left the computer programming field. This was and still is the mentality of management today. Hence, the reason why so many workers are quitting their jobs.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I see a lot of employer bashing going on. Let's balance that out a bit shall we? Employees steal about 50 billion dollars a year from their employers. Time theft is another theft. Employers lose millions a day
From employee time theft. So let's not just dump on the employers here as if employees are saints. They steal more from their employers than the employers steal from them.

30+ Surprising Employee Theft Statistics and Facts (2025 Edition)

Workplace crime is a much more serious problem than most people realize. Find out what's at stake with the help of our employee theft statistics.

www.smallbizgenius.net

I can't argue with you on that point. I also see employees who cheat the employer and it's wrong. I've brought that to the attention of my managers so they know. I'll be truthful, there is alot of finger pointing at our business. Management does trust the workers and workers don't trust management. There needs to be more unity for the business to succeed.

 

[rjs330]

Here's another article regarding employees and their lack of production. More loafing off by employees.

American worker productivity is declining at the fastest rate in 75 years—and it could see CEOs go to war against WFH

EY-Parthenon's Gregory Daco reveals what's going on with the American worker's worst slump of the post-World War II era. It's not all about remote work, he says.

fortune.com

 

[FenderTL5]

Here's another article regarding employees and their lack of production. More loafing off by employees.

American worker productivity is declining at the fastest rate in 75 years—and it could see CEOs go to war against WFH

EY-Parthenon's Gregory Daco reveals what's going on with the American worker's worst slump of the post-World War II era. It's not all about remote work, he says.

fortune.com

From WWII through around 1980 productivity and wages grew near the same pace.
Since then, Net productivity grew 59.7% from 1979-2019 while a typical worker’s compensation grew by 15.8%. There's been divergence between wages and productivity that has massively increased inequality with most gains going to people at the top.
If wages had kept pace, the minimum wage would be in the middle 20's per hour today. It took low wage (essential) workers being exploited further during the shut-downs of COVID to temporarily flip the script.

Your crises is, for the most part, a self-inflicted wound.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Here's another article regarding employees and their lack of production. More loafing off by employees.

American worker productivity is declining at the fastest rate in 75 years—and it could see CEOs go to war against WFH

EY-Parthenon's Gregory Daco reveals what's going on with the American worker's worst slump of the post-World War II era. It's not all about remote work, he says.

fortune.com

I noticed you completely ignored the blame that article places on high turnover.

 

[rjs330]

I noticed you completely ignored the blame that article places on high turnover.

Hi turnover is another employee issue. It costs companies a lot of money to train a new person to do the job. When employees bail on a company soon after hiring it's costing the company more money. Less productivity is happening. It also leads to what one of the posters here mentioned which is being asked to do other jobs they haven't been specifically trained for. That's part of the problem with ty great resignation, quiet quitting and over all lack of employee motivation. When employees bail then jobs still need to be done. It when an employees goes in vacation the job still needs to be done and with smaller employee pools cause no one is sticking around it's makes it difficult on other employees.

People (I mean all people) are more inherently selfish and self centered than ever before. It's all about me. If you don't make me happy or do what I want etc. Leaders these days are being trained more and more in "Leaders eat last" type of mentality. And that's good. Lead by example.

But as a supervisor I see so much "It's all about me" stuff from employees. Forgetting that it puts pressure on your fellow employees. And yes they don't take it well when they are the ones that gets the pressure put on when their other teammates are not pulling their weight. But they struggle with paying it to their own behaviors.

It is critical that we ALL start looking around and see each other as teammates. Supervisors should be part of the team and their job should be doing all they can to help their teammates be successful. Remove obstacles that are bogging people down. Encourage, be positive. Employees need to see they are also part of the team and when they slack off they are harming their fellow teammates.

Look all I am trying to say as well as the article, we need to work together to make things better. All of us. Employers, employees, supervisors and their team.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Hi turnover is another employee issue. It costs companies a lot of money to train a new person to do the job. When employees bail on a company soon after hiring it's costing the company more money. Less productivity is happening.

Why should the employee who's quitting care about that? He doesn't own a share of the company, and he's leaving, so what happens to the company moving forward is meaningless

It also leads to what one of the posters here mentioned which is being asked to do other jobs they haven't been specifically trained for. That's part of the problem with ty great resignation, quiet quitting and over all lack of employee motivation. When employees bail then jobs still need to be done. It when an employees goes in vacation the job still needs to be done and with smaller employee pools cause no one is sticking around it's makes it difficult on other employees.

This sounds like a management problem. If you can't cover the work because people are quitting, then you need to 1. address why people are quitting and 2. hire more people. None of this is instant, of course, but that's why you need to be proactive. Ultimately, high turnover has almost nothing to do with employees, and almost everything to do with employers. People quit because they're unhappy with the job and know that they can find other work relatively easily. And that moving to another job is the only way to get a decent raise.

Loyalty is a two-way street. Companies today offer almost nothing in terms of loyalty to their employees - no pensions, 2-3% COL raises only (and that's if you're lucky), frequently substandard insurance, and they'll happily lay you off if it helps the bottom line. If switching jobs gets me a 20% raise, and I lose nothing by leaving, why shouldn't I quit?

People (I mean all people) are more inherently selfish and self centered than ever before. It's all about me. If you don't make me happy or do what I want etc.

How is that a new thing? People generally want to be happy. If your workers are happy, they won't quit. And workers are less happy than ever before because they're being asked to do more work for less (relative) money, benefits are continually slashed, and they're more connected than ever - which means that they're less likely to settle for less than their worth simply because they don't know any better.

Leaders these days are being trained more and more in "Leaders eat last" type of mentality.

If you say so.

But as a supervisor I see so much "It's all about me" stuff from employees. Forgetting that it puts pressure on your fellow employees. And yes they don't take it well when they are the ones that gets the pressure put on when their other teammates are not pulling their weight. But they struggle with paying it to their own behaviors.

That's a management issue. If people are underperforming, address the issue with them, then fire them if they don't try to improve.

Look all I am trying to say as well as the article, we need to work together to make things better. All of us. Employers, employees, supervisors and their team.

You say that, but all I'm seeing in your posts is you blaming employees for everything. Nothing is management's fault, nothing is the company's fault - even the stuff that obviously has nothing to do with employees. If you want your employees to act like they're part of a team, first you have to treat them like they're part of a team.

 

[Pommer]

Please forgive me but the thread title has been bothering me for a week (it seems).

Why’s it sound like the employee/employer relationship is supposed to be “adversarial”?

Is the thought of workers and employers trying to work together to have the bestest manufacturers, service companies and all manner of businesses too “socialist” or something?

Maybe if we didn’t approach each other (out in real life) with a chip on our shoulders, we might accomplish more?
I don’t know, I’m just a heathen.
ETA: yes my previous posts were “joining in”, that’s why it bothered me, I am neither an employee nor an employer, I needn’t care. To paraphrase William Jennings Bryan “I don’t worry about the things I don’t [have to] worry about”, and got sucked in with the provocative title.

 

[iluvatar5150]

People (I mean all people) are more inherently selfish and self centered than ever before. It's all about me. If you don't make me happy or do what I want etc. Leaders these days are being trained more and more in "Leaders eat last" type of mentality. And that's good. Lead by example.

But as a supervisor I see so much "It's all about me" stuff from employees. Forgetting that it puts pressure on your fellow employees. And yes they don't take it well when they are the ones that gets the pressure put on when their other teammates are not pulling their weight. But they struggle with paying it to their own behaviors.

Saddling Employee B with Employee A’s unfinished work is an example of the employer being selfish. Instead of hiring extra help or holding Employee A accountable, they’re just offloading the cost onto somebody else. That employer is saying it’s all about them; that employer is not showing any loyalty to Employee B.

And while it may be true that some middle managers are taking up the “leaders eat last” mantra, I’ve yet to see any movement like that among the C suite set.

 

[Pommer]

Saddling Employee B with Employee A’s unfinished work is an example of the employer being selfish. Instead of hiring extra help or holding Employee A accountable, they’re just offloading the cost onto somebody else. That employer is saying it’s all about them; that employer is not showing any loyalty to Employee B.

And while it may be true that some middle managers are taking up the “leaders eat last” mantra, I’ve yet to see any movement like that among the C suite set.

It is in a company’s best interests to have as few “bad bosses” within it as possible.
But it’s easier to “blame the workers”.
Maybe the best people to lead other people aren’t the ones who’ve proven that they can do the previous job (within a company), but the ones who are better at communicating the will of the Carpeted Floors, and vice versa, to/from the hoi polloi?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

As is just breaking the law and having employees not report it out of fear of losing their livelyhood.

I had a boss who "let someone go" because she got pregnant. When threatened with a lawsuit, she said, "Sue me. I have lawyers, and no one will want to hire you again.". The (ex) employee, of course, did not sue.

 

[rjs330]

Why should the employee who's quitting care about that? He doesn't own a share of the company, and he's leaving, so what happens to the company moving forward is meaningless

This sounds like a management problem. If you can't cover the work because people are quitting, then you need to 1. address why people are quitting and 2. hire more people. None of this is instant, of course, but that's why you need to be proactive. Ultimately, high turnover has almost nothing to do with employees, and almost everything to do with employers. People quit because they're unhappy with the job and know that they can find other work relatively easily. And that moving to another job is the only way to get a decent raise.

Loyalty is a two-way street. Companies today offer almost nothing in terms of loyalty to their employees - no pensions, 2-3% COL raises only (and that's if you're lucky), frequently substandard insurance, and they'll happily lay you off if it helps the bottom line. If switching jobs gets me a 20% raise, and I lose nothing by leaving, why shouldn't I quit?

How is that a new thing? People generally want to be happy. If your workers are happy, they won't quit. And workers are less happy than ever before because they're being asked to do more work for less (relative) money, benefits are continually slashed, and they're more connected than ever - which means that they're less likely to settle for less than their worth simply because they don't know any better.

If you say so.

That's a management issue. If people are underperforming, address the issue with them, then fire them if they don't try to improve.

You say that, but all I'm seeing in your posts is you blaming employees for everything. Nothing is management's fault, nothing is the company's fault - even the stuff that obviously has nothing to do with employees. If you want your employees to act like they're part of a team, first you have to treat them like they're part of a team.

I'm trying to balance the it's all the managers and companies fault posts from your side.

No people aren't just jumping jobs because they can get more money elsewhere. We see a lot of job hopping these days. People jump from job to job looking for something else. It's the whole satisfy me mentality. The minute something doesn't go their way they are out.

You know to get ahead? It's not job hopping. It's digging in, working hard through all the challenges. You know that whining about having to do another person's job? You know who notices? Yeah, your boss. If you tackle it with a good attitude do you best they notice. If you whine fuss and act put off they notice. People who get ahead are the ones who accept a challenge with a positive attitude.

Yes high turnover these days is because people THINK they can get something better. But you know what you always take you with you. And if you are a demanding and entitled person, which is so many these days you are going to job hop cause no job is perfect.

You are not an employer are you. Your also not a supervisor either. Cause if you were you wouldn't be saying the things you do.

I've worked for some really lousy bosses. Ones that yelled, didn't train, lied. I've also had some very good ones as well.

Gone are the days when companies and leaders could care less about their people. Like I've said all the leadership training these days is all about the people and helping them be successful. But we are also finding that the entitlement mentality is a large obstacle.
We have gone from focusing on management to a much stronger focus on leadership. Companies need both.

 

[rjs330]

Saddling Employee B with Employee A’s unfinished work is an example of the employer being selfish. Instead of hiring extra help or holding Employee A accountable, they’re just offloading the cost onto somebody else. That employer is saying it’s all about them; that employer is not showing any loyalty to Employee B.

And while it may be true that some middle managers are taking up the “leaders eat last” mantra, I’ve yet to see any movement like that among the C suite set.

See this is the wrong mindset. You are assuming the employer can hire extra help or that extra help is available. Here's a good example. Someone works in medical records. It takes specialized training to fulfill the tasks. You can't just pull someone off the street to fill in. But another employee may not know exactly how to do the job, but they at least have some understanding of records and how it works. They now have an opportunity to learn something new. Is the employee going to whine and fuss? Or are they going to accept the challenge? Are they going to use this as an opportunity to grow? Or are they going to have the sour attitude of " it ain't my job". You know who's going to get a head and have a greater chance at success?

Loyalty to B? The boss is giving B a chance to grow. You know to find leaders? Give them opportunities to show they can lead and do things others can't or won't. Who's going to move ahead? It's not the I can't or the I won't guy. Good manager give people a shot to do more.

 

[rjs330]

I had a boss who "let someone go" because she got pregnant. When threatened with a lawsuit, she said, "Sue me. I have lawyers, and no one will want to hire you again.". The (ex) employee, of course, did not sue.

Yeah that not just a terrible boss. That's a terrible person. Like I said, we all have to give each other a shot. All I saw on this thread was how terrible boss are and all they want is to screw employees over.

I wanted to point out employees are no better.

I think it's humanity in general. We all have to get over ourselves. Bosses like the one you mentioned are awful. Employees that are lazy and steal from the company are just as bad.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm trying to balance the it's all the managers and companies fault posts from your side.

No people aren't just jumping jobs because they can get more money elsewhere. We see a lot of job hopping these days. People jump from job to job looking for something else. It's the whole satisfy me mentality. The minute something doesn't go their way they are out.

You know to get ahead? It's not job hopping. It's digging in, working hard through all the challenges. You know that whining about having to do another person's job? You know who notices? Yeah, your boss. If you tackle it with a good attitude do you best they notice. If you whine fuss and act put off they notice. People who get ahead are the ones who accept a challenge with a positive attitude.

Yes high turnover these days is because people THINK they can get something better. But you know what you always take you with you. And if you are a demanding and entitled person, which is so many these days you are going to job hop cause no job is perfect.

You are not an employer are you. Your also not a supervisor either. Cause if you were you wouldn't be saying the things you do.

I've worked for some really lousy bosses. Ones that yelled, didn't train, lied. I've also had some very good ones as well.

Gone are the days when companies and leaders could care less about their people. Like I've said all the leadership training these days is all about the people and helping them be successful. But we are also finding that the entitlement mentality is a large obstacle.
We have gone from focusing on management to a much stronger focus on leadership. Companies need both.

See this is the wrong mindset. You are assuming the employer can hire extra help or that extra help is available. Here's a good example. Someone works in medical records. It takes specialized training to fulfill the tasks. You can't just pull someone off the street to fill in. But another employee may not know exactly how to do the job, but they at least have some understanding of records and how it works. They now have an opportunity to learn something new. Is the employee going to whine and fuss? Or are they going to accept the challenge? Are they going to use this as an opportunity to grow? Or are they going to have the sour attitude of " it ain't my job". You know who's going to get a head and have a greater chance at success?

Loyalty to B? The boss is giving B a chance to grow. You know to find leaders? Give them opportunities to show they can lead and do things others can't or won't. Who's going to move ahead? It's not the I can't or the I won't guy. Good manager give people a shot to do more.

lol, it sounds like you read a lot of management books.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'm trying to balance the it's all the managers and companies fault posts from your side.

That's fine, but you've so far refused to acknowledge any fault whatsoever on the part of management. You can't say "we all need to be better" and expect people to believe you mean it when you try to turn everything back on one group.

No people aren't just jumping jobs because they can get more money elsewhere. We see a lot of job hopping these days. People jump from job to job looking for something else. It's the whole satisfy me mentality. The minute something doesn't go their way they are out.

That's their prerogative - they're not slaves. If an employee quits due to dissatisfaction, then they probably weren't a good fit for the company and you didn't want them anyways. If a lot of employees are quitting due to dissatisfaction, then maybe you're the problem.

You know to get ahead? It's not job hopping. It's digging in, working hard through all the challenges.

Maybe 30-40 years ago. Today, not so much. You work hard and put in the effort, and when you ask for a raise, you're told "next year". Or when a senior position opens up, the company hires someone from outside - rather than promoting you (the person who was already doing all the work in the job description). If you want consistent raises and to get ahead, in the current job market, your best option is to change jobs about every 3-5 years.

You know that whining about having to do another person's job? You know who notices? Yeah, your boss. If you tackle it with a good attitude do you best they notice. If you whine fuss and act put off they notice.

So? If I'm to the point of "whining" about having to do someone else's job, I'm ready to quit anyways.

People who get ahead are the ones who accept a challenge with a positive attitude.

No, the people who do this just get saddled with everyone else's work, for no reward. I've been that guy. I still kind of am. And it's never helped me.

Yes high turnover these days is because people THINK they can get something better. But you know what you always take you with you. And if you are a demanding and entitled person, which is so many these days you are going to job hop cause no job is perfect.

Honestly, the one coming off as demanding and entitled is you. You complain that your employees are so awful and lazy and demanding and entitled, and then you complain that they're quitting. If they're so bad, I would think you'd be happy to get rid of them. The fact is that you're not entitled to anyone's labor.

You are not an employer are you. Your also not a supervisor either. Cause if you were you wouldn't be saying the things you do.

And you've clearly been an employer and/or supervisor too long - if you were still in touch with your employees and their situation, you wouldn't be saying the things that you do either.

Gone are the days when companies and leaders could care less about their people.

Pfft. These days, the only thing companies care about is their bottom line.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Loyalty to B? The boss is giving B a chance to grow. You know to find leaders? Give them opportunities to show they can lead and do things others can't or won't. Who's going to move ahead? It's not the I can't or the I won't guy. Good manager give people a shot to do more.

Bad managers call it "room to grow", but mean, "Bigger bonus for me"