A Three-Day Work Week? One Startup Experiments To Draw Talent (bloomberg.com) 117
A shortage of technology talent has Indian companies offering sweeteners like more vacation time and gender-neutral parental leave as they compete for graduates and professionals. One Bangalore startup is trying a more dramatic solution: a three-day work week. From a report: Fintech company Slice is offering new hires a three-day week with salary at 80% of the going market rate. This is a win-win approach that frees the workers to pursue other passions or interests -- or other gigs -- while still locking in a steady pay and benefits from Slice, said Rajan Bajaj, the company's founder. "This is the future of work," Bajaj, 28, said in a phone interview. "People don't want to be tied down to a job."
Global investors are pouring billions of dollars into India's tech startups, putting entrepreneurs under pressure to ramp up teams. A massive talent crunch has ensued as IT outsourcers, Silicon Valley giants, global retailers and Wall Street banks' technology centers vie for engineering and product talent alongside hundreds of fast-growing startups. Slice is betting that its approach will make it stand apart from the competition. The company has 450 employees and wants to recruit 1,000 engineers and product managers in the next three years.
Global investors are pouring billions of dollars into India's tech startups, putting entrepreneurs under pressure to ramp up teams. A massive talent crunch has ensued as IT outsourcers, Silicon Valley giants, global retailers and Wall Street banks' technology centers vie for engineering and product talent alongside hundreds of fast-growing startups. Slice is betting that its approach will make it stand apart from the competition. The company has 450 employees and wants to recruit 1,000 engineers and product managers in the next three years.
Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd totally sign up for a 3-day work-week at 80% of market rate, if such a thing were available in North America and in my area of expertise. I've been doing professional software development for 30 years and would be very happy to semi-retire at 80% of my normal salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That varies depending on a lot of things.
There were times when I'd have done this, but, at present, my family needs money a LOT more than they need me, so I'd be more inclined to work more days for more pay, given the choice, not fewer for less.
The choice is, IMO, a good thing in general. A "one size fits all" workweek actually fits most people fairly poorly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, sure, if you're starting out with a family and you need money, then it's not a good choice. I'm approaching retirement (well, still 10-15 years away, but as soon as I can swing it financially) and my kids are all grown and pretty much self-sufficient. As you say, choice is a good thing.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
That varies depending on a lot of things.
There were times when I'd have done this, but, at present, my family needs money a LOT more than they need me, so I'd be more inclined to work more days for more pay, given the choice, not fewer for less.
The choice is, IMO, a good thing in general. A "one size fits all" workweek actually fits most people fairly poorly.
There's also nothing preventing one who signs up for this from taking on another gig. Work 3 days, get paid 80% market rate, then go and work freelance for 2 days and make more than the 20% difference.
I would love to have the option.
Re: (Score:2)
In my case, a noncompete. :( I'm in a state where those are presumed valid until proven otherwise.
And let's be honest . . at my age, there's a decent difference between more hours at a single job, versus roughly the same hours split between two, with additional commuting time, potential scheduling conflicts, and so forth. So that does factor into the reason why I'm not currently working 2 gigs, although, a lot of the time, it feels to me like laziness, and not a genuinely valid excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I didn't take that option one of the things preventing me from spending money is not having any time to spend it. Example: I've got a backlog of games I haven't even opened/installed yet.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok...I'm getting tired of this.
This is discrimination against those without kids.
If you give all these parent's time off, that means those without have to take on their extra work.
If you're going to offer them time off, you need to offer the same for EVERYONE.
I mean....equality right? equity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus was so socialist!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, socialist. Or do you think socialism is about stealing, envy, and murder? If so you're buying into too much political propaganda. Someone wants to try universal basic income and the idiots instantly label that as "Socialist". And that parable is very similar to other things that are labeled socialist despite there being no murder, envy, stealing. These people do not know the difference between socialists, communists, social democrats, trade unionists, and so forth. Anything seen as helping out the
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea is to give them a bonus for raising potential future employees/consumers, which childless employees aren't doing.
And gender-neutral parental leave is a great idea, no longer can a manager say (or at least think) that "a female employee is like a male employee that can surprise you with a months-long vacation request you can't deny." Therefore one less reason to discriminate against women in hiring!
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to give them a bonus for raising potential future employees/consumers
TFA is about India, which has four times America's population in less than a third of the land area and a birth rate that is not sustainable. A bonus for having kids is not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
A good point regarding India in particular but not a good argument against the concept in general. Even for India it's better to have gender-neutral parental leave to avoid hiring discrimination against women, even if it's reduced to a humane minimum to avoid incentivising further population growth.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter...it is time off, it is a bonus/benefit given which has a monetary value and if it is given to some and not others, it is discrimination.
And besides...since when did it become the responsibility or even a care of a private company on potential humans?
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter...it is time off, it is a bonus/benefit given which has a monetary value and if it is given to some and not others, it is discrimination.
Meanwhile your CEO gets an annual bonus of several times your lifetime income plus far more generous vacation time for just doing his job, or just as likely, driving the company into the ground, while the sales people get massive bonuses for schmoozing customers into making decisions they'll likely regret. And some people at the company were offered far more or far less salary when they signed onto the job for basically no good reason at all, probably because of demographic factors if anything. But sure, ge
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter...it is time off, it is a bonus/benefit given which has a monetary value and if it is given to some and not others, it is discrimination.
Meanwhile your CEO gets an annual bonus of several times your lifetime income plus far more generous vacation time for just doing his job, or just as likely, driving the company into the ground, while the sales people get massive bonuses for schmoozing customers into making decisions they'll likely regret. And some people at the company were offered far more or far less salary when they signed onto the job for basically no good reason at all, probably because of demographic factors if anything. But sure, get very upset about parental leave, this is the greatest injustice at the company, offering people time off when they need to take care of newborn babies!
Well now looks like you have a degree in non-sequiturs.
So tell me - does your umbrage extent to anyone that makes more money than parents of babies? What happens if your hated CEO has a child - or did I just divide by zero on ya?
Re: (Score:2)
I just thought it was hilarious that of all the "bonuses" any employee might receive, parental leave - one of the most fair, reasonable, and modest ones - is what set this guy off. I mean shareholders get payouts for, at best, having extra money lying around while sitting on their asses and doing jack shit.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Your not taking advantage of a benefit does not constitute discrimination. If you want to take advantage of it, you can have kids too. The benefit is therefore being offered to you equally to the person who uses it.
Re: Amazing (Score:3)
I've never understood this situation, if a colleague is absent, be it due to holidays, sickness, maternity or paternity leave, or leaving the company, how does it make others work more in the same time? Shouldn't the others already be properly loaded, implying that there's no slack to pick up? And at the same time, one person being away impl
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter what the person does on the compensated time off....they are getting a monetary benefit and increasing work on those not able to take the time off.
I've never understood this situation, if a colleague is absent, be it due to holidays, sickness, maternity or paternity leave, or leaving the company, how does it make others work more in the same time? Shouldn't the others already be properly loaded, implying that there's no slack to pick up? And at the same time, one person being away implies stuff takes longer to get done...?
first things first - your idea that a person can take off with no effect is a little odd. I had many vacations cancelled because something came up last minute, and so few places cross train despite giving it lip service. Places tend to run as lean as possible these days.
But let's have an example. You have a project lead who takes a year off for maternity leave.
There just aren't two project leads. It costs twice as much, and yeah - that happens occasionally, as someone else is put into service as the l
Re: Amazing (Score:2)
I didn't say that, quite the contrary. I just said that it's not going to make me work harder (I do what I can in the time that the company pays me for), things will be delayed, because of less manpower. Likewise, specialists going missing can be disruptive, but people also change jobs (get sick, die,...), in which case they're no longer there. Deal with it or go bust.
As for cancelling one's holidays, if that gets you something in the e
Re: (Score:2)
As for cancelling one's holidays, if that gets you something in the end, fine. If not, your choice. If the company you work for will still lay you off just as easily when times get tough, then why do it..?
It's not a popular theme on Slashdot, but yeah, there are positive repercussions for a commitment to getting the project done. I worked with a number of people who weren't going to let management take advantage of them. They were the ones who were let go during budget crunch time.
Re: Amazing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It is not discrimination, you are offered the same thing. If you have a kid, you get the benefit too, therefore there is no discrimination. You can use other words to describe what is happening, but discrimination is incorrect, as you get the same benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the same thing, unless you believe they were handicapped by choice?
People choose to fuck and have kids or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the same thing, unless you believe they were handicapped by choice?
People choose to fuck and have kids or not.
Oh oh oh side story. Due to an Ice hockey mishap, when one guy checked me hard high, and another very low, I broke my ankle.
After getting a dose of titanium on it, Doctor said I was to be off three weeks of work minimum.
I was kind of on a critical path, and the phone at home was ringing off the hook. So after 3 days, I was back at work. They were happy when I got my new cast, as the blood soaked original was kind of nasty looking. I did tell them that when I got to work, I was taking some pretty stron
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement shows your ignorance towards parenting. Parental leave isn't a vacation, a baby sucks up a lot of your time and energy.
No one is disputing that.
If you chose not to have a child, that is your choice. But, you won't be getting 9 months off because you feel you should be entitled to it like a new parent, just so you can sit on your ass playing video games.
That's begging the question - assuming parental time-off on top of statutory requirements can be an entitlement.
Societies / countries as whole get to decide what you are entitled to, by passing laws and writing constitutions. Many countries do indeed choose to give rights like an entitlement to (unpaid) leave to new parents, that are not available to non-parents.
However this is not a law passed by a government. This is individual companies giving differerent working conditions to pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
You chose to work at that employer. That employer has made a policy decision. If you don't like it, GTFO.
Because that's the job that you signed on to.
Re: (Score:3)
What about gay couples that can't have kids?
They have to shoulder this extra burden too..and isn't that a protected class?
Hmm.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. You offer the benefits that you must to attract the talent that you need.
Someone once wrote:
Now who was responsible for that pearl of wisdom [slashdot.org]... I wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
But doesn't change the fact that behind that, are equal pay and benefit requirements.
Re: (Score:3)
What spectacular bullshit! There is no requirement that you be given equal pay or equal benefits to any other person. You negotiate for what you get with your employer.
What the hell do you think is going here? That these are union shops?
LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL wish I had mod points
Great work sir
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. You offer the benefits that you must to attract the talent that you need.
I'm going to throw some fuel on this fire between you two. It appears that you believe that people who have children are superior. I could be wrong, but your writing hints at that.
Okay - should people with children be paid more than people without children?
Should people with children get tax breaks because they have children?
Follow on question - Are the Duggars of reality TV fame (or infamy) superior to people who have less children? How would you handle the situation if the Duggar Matriarch work
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not.
Really? [slashdot.org]. I'm not just throwing ceyenne8's typical everybody for themselves, eat what you kill [slashdot.org] schtick back at them?
That would be up to the employer, now wouldn't it. Technically the people with children are going to work for the employer
Re: (Score:2)
Okay - should people with children be paid more than people without children?
That would be up to the employer, now wouldn't it. Technically the people with children are going to work for the employer if the employer offers them a sufficiently attractive package, and what the employer provides to people without children really isn't relevant to them.
This carries a strong assumption that people with children are superior workers who will not work for anyone unless their demands are met, and as you put it people without children are not relevant.
Should people with children get tax breaks because they have children?
It's pretty clear for countries with less than replacement level birth rates that the answer is yes
Perhaps an even better idea is to look into the social reasons why births are going below replacement than bribing people. And who says - "I wasn't going to have children - but since they are going to pay me - lets boink and bear honey! Roll out the urchins, and the money will roll in."
But here's what happe
Re: (Score:2)
Does it? The companies that are doing this technology startups, not fast food restaurants. You're free to propose an alternate explanation for offering the policies. And yes, comp and benefits demands by their single co-workers aren't relevant to their own negotiations with an employer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
so you're the guy who thinks they shouldn't have to pay all their taxes because they didn't visit hospital last year, or didn't have any benefit from police, fire or any other public services.
You probably live alone so you throw away less garbage - it's SO UNFAIR that you don't get a discount on this compared to the family upstairs
Maybe you only travelled on 2% of state roads this year - why should your taxes have to pay to upkeep all of them - it's SO UNFAIR
If an employers parental leave policy is such an issue for you, then go work somewhere else. In fact I highly recommend you get a job in the US where parental leave allowance is already the equivalent of a third world shithole
Re: (Score:2)
No mod points unfortunately today but just wanted to drop a line to say I'm behind this 1000%
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it as job security, or maybe even an extra opportunity for advancement.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fucking and having a kid was their choice not mine and therefore, why should I pay for it with not only my money but my time and efforts?" Think of it as job security, or maybe even an extra opportunity for advancement.
You're kind or right. I took some vacation whne my son was born, and tried to take two weeks, but kept getting called back into work. As well as defying doctors orders after a big operation to repair an ankle fracture and comeing back into work after 3 days instead of the ordered 3 weeks.
I made a lot more money than my fellow similar employees.
I deserved as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So, because a couple chooses to have an unprotected fuck and they get stuck with the consequences, "I" should pay for that with my time and shoulder extra burden at work for free?
I don't think you'll be able to win with these folk. They're using a modified version of the "Won't someone think of the Children" argument, and probably have a Baby on Board bumper sticker on their cars, because everyone else is not important to them. Probably some of those stick figure families on the back window as well. They are better people than us proles.
Meanwhile humans have been having children for a hundred K years or more, and these folk seem to think it's almost impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
So, because a couple chooses to have an unprotected fuck and they get stuck with the consequences, "I" should pay for that with my time and shoulder extra burden at work for free?
If someone's decision to have unprotected sex causes them to get a disease that will necessitate time away from work... same thing.
LK
That is a real non-sequitur. You are either calling a child a disease, or equating my breaking my ankle in a game of Hockey that I was playing with my son on the team as parental leave for the short hospitalization that fixing me required,
Re: (Score:2)
You are either calling a child a disease, or equating my breaking my ankle in a game of Hockey that I was playing with my son on the team as parental leave for the short hospitalization that fixing me required,
No. I am not calling a child a disease.
I was talking about someone catching gonorrhea or something of the like.
LK
I figured as much - just wanting to get you to think about the analogy. Health care is not the same as maternal/paternal leave. Even if it does involve the same activities, like sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is nature's way of telling us the earth is overpopulated at this point in time?
Hell, what happened to those that not too long ago were protesting on that cause?
But no, I don't consider you a hero for having kids.
It's something that comes with humans...fucking feels good, they fuck they have kids. It will happen with or without incentives.
I agree (Score:2)
Take that unpaid time off and volunteer at a daycare.
Re: (Score:2)
But some companies give out paid maternity/paternity leave as a perk, which is what I think the original complaint was aimed at. Which effectively means, those who choose to have a child get more PTO time than those who do not. In other words: pay discrimination based on parental status...
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, am in favor of giving extra paid time off to anyone who will be a primary caregiver for a newborn -- regardless of whether the newborn is their own child or not. I don't discriminate based on parental status.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I should give 2 fucks why exactly?
Paid time off is paid time off. I don't care what anyone wants to do with that time..raise a kid, motorcycle across the US, do a marathon of the Sopranos, it is the paid time off and the burden of extra work you have to take on while someone else is out of the office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not going to make it into a nursing home, he's going to die trying to do an amazingly cool motorcycle stunt while his friends make a video of it!
Re: (Score:2)
Parental leave is a societal investment in the caretaking of a young child, not a vacation for the parent. You've clearly never been a parent. Until your kid starts sleeping "through the night" (defined as sleeping at least 5 hours continuously) you're up every 2.5 to 3 hours for feeding. That goes on anywhere from 3 to 6 months, and can take longer for some babies. Try this experiment... set your alarm to wake yourself up every 3 hours all night where you have to get up and do something... make a sandwich or something. Then go back to bed. You can't nap longer than 3 hours during the day either. Do that for three months and tell us how well you're functioning. Seriously, I was an army reservist and part of basic training was operating on little sleep, and at worst they'd still let you sleep 5 hours a night, except for a couple rare exceptions. So yeah, I can attest, having a new baby is more mentally exhausting than basic training, and goes on for far longer. But without parents we wouldn't have kids, and it doesn't seem like society would fare that well without them.
If it's so awful and draining - should you even be having children?
When the wife and I had our kid, it was tiring at first. But y'all are framing it as a nightmare existence that no one would want to have.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really a bonus because you end up spending all that time looking after a baby, not sleeping and spending all your money on kiddie stuff. Going back to work is like taking a break from it.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't address the burden it puts on those that don't get time off and have to stay working to make up for the slacker that is off taking care of the results of a fun fuck one night...and getting paid time off to do so.
They get compensated time off and you get extra work...and do not get equal extra compens
Re: (Score:2)
There should be no extra burden on other staff. The manager should plan for these kinds of things and make sure enough labour is available. They can take on temps or just delay things. That's the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
There should be no extra burden on other staff. The manager should plan for these kinds of things and make sure enough labour is available. They can take on temps or just delay things. That's the issue.
I don't know if you work on really simple stuff or don't have deadlines, but you aren't going to hire a temp for say, a project lead engineer. And if you have a deadline, they really aren't all that eager to delay everything for a year.
Also - for the critical positions, is there so much money floating around that you can have 2 or more of each position?
Thats the issue. It's not too difficult to replace say, a waiter/waitress or a maintenance worker. If a lead engineer or master machinists takes a year
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really a bonus because you end up spending all that time looking after a baby, not sleeping and spending all your money on kiddie stuff. Going back to work is like taking a break from it.
I don't get it - Both my wife and I spent a lot of time raising our kid. In the early part, she had the major share (sorry - but daddy didn't have the food supply built into mom.
But ya'll are framing it as something that no one in their right mid would ever do. Last poster said it was worse than basic training, anoither said it was a massive upheaval.
We just did it. It was tiring for about a year, but big deal. I work long hours and get tired there as well.
I sure wouldn't try to incentivize people
Re: (Score:3)
"those without have to take on their extra work"
It's really not extra work. Someone who just had a kid is going to be tried and distracted and called away unexpectedly. Their productivity is going to be greatly reduced and they're going to slow other people down who are trying to get a hold of them. By making the new parent set defined leave times they are required to complete their passdowns ahead of time and to notify everyone that they will not be available, and then GTFO of everyone's way.
It is good for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure?
The parents are getting extra compensated time off, and the non-parents not only do not get the same compensated time off, but they also have to shoulder the extra burden of work at the job while these parents are off.
It would even out if the non-parents were rewarded with the same amount of compensated time off.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not, pull out your cock, find a mate (not in that order) and make a baby. The offer is there on the table for you to take. Just because you need to put effort into claiming the reward doesn't mean you're being descriminated against.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you are not able to have kids you insensitive clod.
Discrimination against the differently physically abled?
What about gays that can't have kids?
What about those that are fiscally responsible and just know they can't afford one?
The crux if it all is one class
Re: (Score:2)
Like salaried versus hourly workers, or employees versus temporary contractors.
Vive la revolucion! Equality and equity for everyone!
Don't think that we're not saving this epic whining for the moment that you snap back into your anarco-capitalist fantasy persona.
Well then you should have
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference.
And yes, most of the US is at will work...not sure where you're coming from on this, nor what point you're trying to make.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you are not able to have kids you insensitive clod.
No such thing. Rent someone else's uterus, you'll still qualify for parental leave.
What about those that are fiscally responsible and just know they can't afford one?
Choice they made. Not discrimination.
The crux if it all is one class of people are given compensated time off that others are not.
No doubt you think that sports is discrimination against those with disabilities. Or TV is discrimination against the blind. Quite clearly your post is discrimination against people with functioning braincells since it's clearly not written for them as an audience.
Your position is insanely stupid. Like of all the dumbfuck things you've said on Slashdot (and there have been a lot) this has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's compensated time off.
It doesn't matter what you do with that time.
That is what many of society does, but it is not a requirement nor an obligation of any set of individuals.
Not only do many people choose not to be burdened with kids, but others cannot have them, and many don't like them...would you rather no kid or kids in a home with p
Start a childless startup, let us know how it goes (Score:3)
Ok...I'm getting tired of this.
This is discrimination against those without kids.
If you give all these parent's time off, that means those without have to take on their extra work.
If you're going to offer them time off, you need to offer the same for EVERYONE.
I mean....equality right? equity?
Your theory make sense if you and other people who lack the charisma to get someone to reproduce with them are all we need. So if that's the case, great, go start your own startup, incels and the purposely childless only! Unfortunately, there's a labor shortage, particularly in fintech, like this startup, so I doubt you can meet your needs from those without dependents alone.
Since you and your ilk lack the capability to be the "Army of One" and all your employer needs...and presumably you want to take
Re: (Score:2)
Ok...I'm getting tired of this.
This is discrimination against those without kids.
If you give all these parent's time off, that means those without have to take on their extra work.
If you're going to offer them time off, you need to offer the same for EVERYONE.
I mean....equality right? equity?
The concept of gender neutral parental leave was based on the inequality of women having parental leave yet the sperm donor didn't. So some places offered it reluctantly to the sperm donor.
But it does offer a real issue. It is a sort of perk, like giving smokers ciggy breaks, but not non-smokers.
But it really isn't about equality. It's about unintended circumstances. Why sould people who don't take big chunkc of time off get less paid leave? It's like a staff assistant that worked where I did. She ha
Gender neutral leave is pro-family, not pro-woman. (Score:2)
Ok...I'm getting tired of this.
This is discrimination against those without kids.
If you give all these parent's time off, that means those without have to take on their extra work.
If you're going to offer them time off, you need to offer the same for EVERYONE.
I mean....equality right? equity?
The concept of gender neutral parental leave was based on the inequality of women having parental leave yet the sperm donor didn't. So some places offered it reluctantly to the sperm donor.
But it does offer a real issue. It is a sort of perk, like giving smokers ciggy breaks, but not non-smokers.
But it really isn't about equality. It's about unintended circumstances. Why sould people who don't take big chunkc of time off get less paid leave? It's like a staff assistant that worked where I did. She had several children over a 10 year period, taking the maximum amount of leave each time. She was locked into the job, so she got it back every time she came back, then took off again.
The unintended circumstance then was that 4 other women lost their jobs. Now there's an unintended circumstance.
Another example is if you have two equally qualified applicants for a job. A single guy and a woman who is young and in her reproductive years.
Who do you hire - keeping in mid that you will get in a legal mess if you even ask about child bearing.
Several women I interviewed circumvented that by saying they know I couldn't ask, but they were not planning on having children. It's awkward for both interviewer and applicant, but it actually makes points for her, because it shows she's thinking about cause and effect, and not just herself.
I am guessing you either have never had kids or are the shittiest father than ever lived. The concept of gender-neutral leave is because having a baby is a MASSIVE disruption and the entire family needs the dad. It's not pro-woman, it's pro-family. I enjoyed taking care of my kids and have a great relationship with them. Only a shitty human being could work with a 1-week old baby at home. Any decent dad wants a few weeks to bond with the baby and help out.
And that's for the first kid. For each addi
Re: (Score:2)
I am guessing you either have never had kids or are the shittiest father than ever lived.
What is amazing is just how wrong you are. I was an active father, involved in all aspects of my son's life, including getting to play with him as a high school student on my Hockey team. He was never on drugs, and he is now a successful adult, as a manager in his company. So sorry I don't match your narrative. Jumping to conclusions ant insulting people isn't really a good trait.
The concept of gender-neutral leave is because having a baby is a MASSIVE disruption and the entire family needs the dad.
Oh, cry me a river - You are just not terribly capable if you can't handle the work of parenthood. Humans have been doing it si
Re: (Score:2)
Jumping to conclusions ant insulting people isn't really a good trait.
Good point. I should have done better and found a way to try to react without being an asshole. I apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
Jumping to conclusions ant insulting people isn't really a good trait.
Good point. I should have done better and found a way to try to react without being an asshole. I apologize.
No problem. Completely accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
This is discrimination against those without kids.
People having children is fundamental to a country's future, it should damn well be every citizen's responsibility to raise kids in one's life. This is investing into the country's future just like building infrastructures.
Those without kids subsidising in some form to those who are raising children is just fair. These kids will be the ones paying tax to support your welfare after you retired. Equality, right? Chip in your share to help raise those kids.
If you don't want your company to offer something
Re: (Score:2)
So, they ALREADY get money from me for that.
And, they also get other tax breaks for choosing to have unprotected sex.
They do this and now everyone has to pay with their time and efforts for their choices?
Isn't it about time for people who want to be parents to go back to also having to make the sacrifices required to do this again?
They need to quit having everyone else pay for their kids with having to shoulder the burden of extr
Re: (Score:1)
When people think a 3 day week (presumably extended hours so you end up working 80% of the hours as well) is 'semi-retirement' we have a problem.
But yes, I would do that too, or maybe after the dependent has become independent - by then maybe this will be more common.
Re: (Score:2)
You have 40% more free time at only 80% of the salary.
Which is fine, I guess, if the things that you do in your free time never cost anything.
Most things do.
The Catch. (Score:2)
While in France they have some rather liberal ideas of Labor, which have a lot of free time. Which is mostly fine for France, as it is their culture to do the things they want to do them.
However American Culture are Workaholics (or so they think they are). If American Companies offered Full time 3 days a week, jobs. What is going to happen, is people taking 2 full time 3 days a week jobs, and instead of pushing 40 hour work weeks, they will be taking 48 hour work weeks, because American Culture, and infras
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And use your extra free time to play CALL OF DUTY, am I right?
Re: (Score:2)
startup hours (Score:3)
Stop pulling stories out of your ass about 996 (Score:2)
Or if one is a contractor. Some clients will auto-fire anyone if they put more than 40 hours, so they can collect OT pay... once. We will just see people working their usual 50-60 hours, but only getting pay for 24 hours.
The 996 shop sucks, but eventually every business winds up going to this because it gets maximum benefit from the employer, and businesses that survive do this.
No, businesses don't do that. That's a Chinese phenomena and if it were true, it would be a global one. Do you think Jack Ma invented exploiting your workforce? 996 used to be the norm long, long ago. It it actually achieved results, people would be fighting to make it common here.
The companies that really lead their sector don't do this: Apple, Microsoft, Google, Tesla, Bosch, Mercedes, Canon, Sony, etc. Some work their workers harder than others, but most successful ones focus on working smarter
The fineprint (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a roof over your head you'll need to work two three day per week jobs. It's a more flexible version of the 9-9-6.
This idea has been around for many decades (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
12 hour days are difficult for parents of school age children. 5 days a week at 6 hours a day sounds more like it to me. Personally, my productivity starts to drop some after 6 hours anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, six hours, really?
My productivity drops as soon as I open the company laptop. Maybe it has something to do with making pornhub.com the default home page?
4-day Work Week (Score:2)
4 is the key number here. A square has 4 corners. A rectangle has 4 corners. There are 4 directions. 2 binary digits can have 4 states. Nobody's coming up with 3. You can't get enough work done in 3 days. Step into my office! *why?* Because you're fucking fired.
Obligatory Link from There's Something About Mary [youtube.com].
Do people not know how startups work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those people sound like idiots and need to say no. If everyone stops then it won't be expected.
Realistically, we only need a 12h work week. (Score:2)
According to the estimate of the author of "Bullshit Jobs", about 70% of all jobs are either completely pointless and useless, or only exist to support such jobs.
So if you assume a 5 * 8h work week to be the average, that comes out at 12h of work a week. To get everything done that we need right now. Nothing of value lost.
And that does not include the chats at the water cooler, going to the toilet, and just pondering things or thinking of something else at your desk that a normal human being needs to stay s
Clarification: (Score:2)
By "that does not include", I of course mean that those 12h *do* include all those things, and the amount we do *not* need to work does not include them... I messed up the negations a bit there.
3 workdays with 16 hours?! (Score:2)
And you need at least 4 days to recover from crunching through these 3 days.