Long days, short nights
I was just thinking, why is it that 8 hours at work seem to last forever, while 8 hours of sleep seem to fly by -- both leaving one tired and ready for bed? It seems as if maybe it is a sign that we all (minus those 2nd and 3rd generation welfare mamas) work too much and need to spend more time sleeping or even doing things that one may consider relaxing. To tie in with this, I was thinking about the actual amount of time one truly spends working, versus being at work. I know that for the most part, I am a hard worker, but if you subtract all the "nonsense" things out of a work day, I may only be really doing 5-6 hours of work in an 8 hour day. Now, I am not saying that I am not doing work related things in regards to the "nonsense," but I think that most meetings have at least 20% overhead in them and then there is the time you spend speaking with your co-workers. I have to admit, I can be quite chatty, but I know that it is really the only way to really get the information one needs to do his job. In fact, I was thinking that I probably spend about 3 hours a week just chatting with my boss about things that may or may not directly relate to what we do. Then again, sometimes the best ideas are derived during open chit-chat. I guess that one can also learn a lot about their co-workers via this non-productive communication, which in the long run may enhance the team dynamic when decisions need to be made. Anyway, back to my original thought. Let's say that you were given two options.
1. You work 40 + hours a week but you get to have breaks.
2. You work 25 hours a week, but you do not take anything more than a bathroom break. You will also be expected to be productive during your shift.
Which would you choose?
I at first thought that I would take the 25 hours a week, but then I thought about it. I would hate going to work after the second week as I would become completly burned out by the intense need to compete tasks on a constant basis. Imagine having writers block, but being forced to complete something of quality in a limited time span. It would not happen. Crap would be produced and then the company would go down the drain. The weird thing about this whole concept is that it really brings me to see the inherent flaws with Unions, their leadership, as well as corporate leadership.
The above concept is really kind of like the ideal of the unions; Fixed time with set productivity. Humans are not like this. We are not machines. We need to have some flexibility in what we do, and how we think. If you look at the way that Unions have evolved, they actually have eliminated the human factor out of the work day (This in no way gives corporation’s excuses for the way that they treat their employees). Unions like communist want set production numbers, fixed jobs, and little flexibility in what the employer can do with their employees. The best example of this is seen in American manufacturing, especially up until a few years ago. they wanted no flexibility at the manufacturing level. It was a "we do what we do" mentality. American manufacturers realized that they would not be able to compete and did what they needed to do in order to survive. They moved the manufacturing out of the USA.
Now, I am a pro-American, buy American person, but I can really see where we lost our competitive edge. Pensions, unattainable healthcare for everyone, lack of flexibility, and the "it’s all about me" mentality has moved our jobs to other countries.
Yes, it is true that the costs of production is a lot cheaper in some of these countries, but think about the cost of shipping these items back here. That alone takes much of the competitive cost advantage out of the justification for moving things out of the US, but they also factor in the part about not having to deal with the selfish employee issues. Workers in other countries are happy to have jobs. They will work off shifts, learn new tasks -- even languages, and most of all, they are happy with what they have. now I can go on, and even talk about corporate greed and what-not, but remember much of what seems like corporate greed was really driven by the government over-legislating how business function, and not holding foreign manufacturers who sell products here in the good ole' US of A to the same standards, i.e. leather tanning is done in Central America where there are no environmental restrictions on the dyes, and then the dyed leather is shipped back to the US to be made into couches, chairs, and car seats.
OK, I think I really went off the far end on this one, and some may get angry with me, but I am beginning to see the light. I believe in the rights of employees, but only if they are truly in the right.
1. You work 40 + hours a week but you get to have breaks.
2. You work 25 hours a week, but you do not take anything more than a bathroom break. You will also be expected to be productive during your shift.
Which would you choose?
I at first thought that I would take the 25 hours a week, but then I thought about it. I would hate going to work after the second week as I would become completly burned out by the intense need to compete tasks on a constant basis. Imagine having writers block, but being forced to complete something of quality in a limited time span. It would not happen. Crap would be produced and then the company would go down the drain. The weird thing about this whole concept is that it really brings me to see the inherent flaws with Unions, their leadership, as well as corporate leadership.
The above concept is really kind of like the ideal of the unions; Fixed time with set productivity. Humans are not like this. We are not machines. We need to have some flexibility in what we do, and how we think. If you look at the way that Unions have evolved, they actually have eliminated the human factor out of the work day (This in no way gives corporation’s excuses for the way that they treat their employees). Unions like communist want set production numbers, fixed jobs, and little flexibility in what the employer can do with their employees. The best example of this is seen in American manufacturing, especially up until a few years ago. they wanted no flexibility at the manufacturing level. It was a "we do what we do" mentality. American manufacturers realized that they would not be able to compete and did what they needed to do in order to survive. They moved the manufacturing out of the USA.
Now, I am a pro-American, buy American person, but I can really see where we lost our competitive edge. Pensions, unattainable healthcare for everyone, lack of flexibility, and the "it’s all about me" mentality has moved our jobs to other countries.
Yes, it is true that the costs of production is a lot cheaper in some of these countries, but think about the cost of shipping these items back here. That alone takes much of the competitive cost advantage out of the justification for moving things out of the US, but they also factor in the part about not having to deal with the selfish employee issues. Workers in other countries are happy to have jobs. They will work off shifts, learn new tasks -- even languages, and most of all, they are happy with what they have. now I can go on, and even talk about corporate greed and what-not, but remember much of what seems like corporate greed was really driven by the government over-legislating how business function, and not holding foreign manufacturers who sell products here in the good ole' US of A to the same standards, i.e. leather tanning is done in Central America where there are no environmental restrictions on the dyes, and then the dyed leather is shipped back to the US to be made into couches, chairs, and car seats.
OK, I think I really went off the far end on this one, and some may get angry with me, but I am beginning to see the light. I believe in the rights of employees, but only if they are truly in the right.
posted by Brian at 7:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home