How Does a 9/80 Work Schedule Work Out? 1055
cellocgw writes "My company is in the process of implementing a version of '9/80,' a work schedule that squeezes 80 hours' labor time into 9 business days and provides every other Friday off. I was wondering how this has been implemented in other companies, and how it's worked out for other Slashdot readers. Is your system flexible? Do you find time to get personal stuff done during the week? Is Friday good for anything other than catching up on lost sleep? And perhaps most important, do your managers respect the off-Fridays, or do they pull people in on a regular basis to handle 'crises?'"
feh (Score:0, Interesting)
I work from home, and as long as all the data gets processed, nobody gives a damn what I do. It's great.
Lost sleep? (Score:3, Interesting)
I interviewed at a large defense contractor, the office I interviewed at did a 9/80, it sounded great at the time and still does. As for lost sleep... seriously... you work 9-9-9-9-8, 9-9-9-9-off. I doubt the extra hour a day will kill you. If it does, just eat through lunch.
Re:I worked 9/80 for 4 summers (Score:5, Interesting)
As for management respecting the day -- that's like any off-day. You have to enforce it yourself. I've been asked to work on my 9/80 day, and never had a problem agreeing to it. I just swapped it for a different day. Management loved my flexibility (in when I took a day off).
I work that. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I worked 9/80 for 4 summers (Score:3, Interesting)
I would always make plans well in advance and make sure that my supervisor knew not only that I had plans, but how much money I had invested in them. The implication was always there -- if your action deprives me of my ability to execute this plan, I am going to charge you the amount noted. I never had to play that card, but that's because I think the strategy worked to secure my days off, either when I had 9/80 or when I was simply planning vacation time.
I'm seriously considering to write into my next contract, language that requires them to make reasonable compensation for travel or entertainment that I have to forego at the company's insistence.
3x12.5 is even better! (Score:5, Interesting)
90% of the employees voluntarily choose 9/80 (Score:5, Interesting)
My employer offers optional 9/80 schedules. I estimate that 90% of the employees voluntarily choose 9/80. It is great to have at lest 26 three day weekends every year. When holidays fall on Monday, you may get a 4 day weekend.
The off-Friday is well respected by management. The managers generally don't come in either.
An off-Friday is a great time for banking, appointments, the start of vacation, volunteering in your kids' school, etc.
Most people who choose the 5/40 schedule do so because they need to be home early to meet kids at the school bus or because the spouse works a regular schedule and they want to match schedules.
Flexibility is always good. We have core hours from 10:00 to 3:00. Some people come in very early and leave at 3:00 to minimize the time kids are home alone. It can save a lot of child care costs. Others like me regularly come in at 10:00 and leave at 7:00.
Re:4/10 is easier (Score:5, Interesting)
I did both 4/40 and 9/80, and I tell you, the first extra hour isn't that noticeable, but going from 9 to 10 hours a day sucked. It means either you arrive at 6am so that you can leave at 5. If you can't get there until 9am, have fun working till 8pm...
I'm back to working 5/40 now, and do indeed miss the 9/80 schedule. One of the best things was the regular 4-day holiday weekends. The accounting calendar was usually arranged so that Fridays off fell before Monday holidays like Memorial Day, etc.
Re:I worked 9/80 for 4 summers (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, 9/80 is great. I hired on with a company about a year ago that had just switched to the 9/80 system. There were some issues as everyone adjusted, but it's been great since. I like it so much, I'd view a typical 5/40 as a negative for any future employers.
I found that I didn't miss the extra hour during the week, and the Friday off is great for sleeping in, doctor appointments, or for random things that can't be done on the weekend.
My employer doesn't typically pull people in on the off Friday, but I imagine it happens every once in awhile. Although, I'm sure this varies greatly by company.
Overall, I'd say it's nothing to be scared of as long as the entire company embraces it. It's when portions of the employees are working regular weeks and some are on 9/80 that things tend to fall apart.
I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather have 4x9hour days, a 10% cut in pay, and 3 days off every week. (Hey, most of the last 10% is taxes anyway, right). If everyone did this, we could avoid tons of layoffs nationwide, lower energy costs (4 days commuting instead of 5), and 3-day weekends every week ...
Re:I love it. (Score:5, Interesting)
The only issue that has ever come up is:
1) When a customer comes in, and we have to come in on our day off
and
2) Because of the increased rest on a three-day weekend, people use less vacation time, resulting in the office being virtually deserted in December.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
The best schedule I ever worked was 12 hour days. I'd work 3 days one week, and 4 days the next week. I always had either 3 or 4 days off.
A buddy of mine worked a variant of 9/80 schedule. They worked 9 hour days M-Th, and then worked a half day every Friday. Frankly, I'd rather have a full day off every other week.
Re:it sucks (Score:2, Interesting)
I should not read *any* "workplace discussion" right now. I'm about to leave my very cushy, very low-paying job for a contract gig with an offer of money that I can't refuse. But I'm pretty sure I'll have to actually work, and worse, work for other people. I'm a little scared. But I *Really* need the money.
Re:4/10 is easier (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate four tens. I always found that I got NOTHING done outside work and spent the whole extra day trying to catch up. Not fun.
To each his own, I suppose.
-Peter
I work whatever hours I want (Score:5, Interesting)
The company measures my performance by what I get done.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
Not Right.
The idea that at a certain point, the govt takes most of your earnings in taxes is an urban legend.
For anybody working by the hour, there is no "tipping point" where the govt keeps most of each additional dollar - it is just untrue.
>>If everyone did this (4x9hr days), we could avoid tons of layoffs nationwide.
A company can avoid layoffs by cutting hours and pay.
If everybody at every company had their hours and pay cut, their bills remain the same, so the workers' spendable income after covering expenses is either gone or greatly reduced - You have just created a recession.
That depends... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, my wife works a 40 hour week that's supposed to be 4 days per week, 10 hours per day. Usually that translates to 8am to 7pm daily. She say's she'd never go back to 5x8.
Unfortunately we car pool to work, so I work 8 to 7 as well. And then I usually put in 4 or 5 hours on Friday, and a few hours each on Saturday and Sunday. The difference.... You guessed it. She's in an hourly position that isn't exempt from overtime rules. I'm in a salaried position that is exempt from overtime rules. And to top it off, she makes about 20% more than I do because she is in an industry that competes to get workers. I'm in an industry that has more workers than it can afford.
All in all 4-5x9 probably works OK, and if you're in an urban area, it's 10% less time that you'll sit in traffic. Maybe more because you either be commuting early or late. If the extra hour in the work day is cutting into your sleep, your commute is way too long. If it's cutting into your TV watching, then get TiVo and watch on your new day off.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Interesting)
Depends on where you work, what deductions you have, and your tax bracket. Come up to Kanuckistan and you'll see just how much higher your marginal tax rate is on the last few hours income each week.
Also, which is more economically efficient - to pay people a marginal amount to sit around (unemployment - which comes out of taxes, remember), or for everyone to get some extra time off? I'd love a 9/36 w.a 10% pay cut. Between the lower taxes and the cost savings and sheer convenience and higher quality of life, who wouldn't?
I hated it (Score:3, Interesting)
I worked a 9/80 schedule for years and grew to hate it. If you've got any kind of a commute that turns a 9 hour day into an 11 hour day. Days seemed interminable. All those extra hours for two days off a month. And the three days fly by because you tend to pack everything into your day off. Car maintenance, doctor visits, any errands.
A new company got the contract and didn't include the flex schedule and we went back to 8 hour days. It was like a vacation every day. 8 hours was a breeze.
Better than any flex schedule was finding a job I could telecommute part of the week. Now that's a luxury. Work is exactly the same but the stress is way lower. You don't realize how much time you spend getting ready and getting to work. No jarring alarm clocks, no traffic. I'm probably going to jinx it saying this, but since I started the telecommute schedule I haven't been really sick once. The difference is really quite amazing.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
Japan's 'lost decade' (and continuing) also has a lot to do with lack of population growth. Sadly, interest-based capitalism goes hand-in-hand with growth. Japan has gone into negative population growth territory. Much of the west will follow in our lifetimes. From a green or even moderately sane perspective, the cessation of growth and consumption is a blessed and long-hoped-for event. But, economics as we know it stagnates. People get money, but they don't lend it. They don't because lending entails some risk, but, whatever you might invest in is unlikely to grow in a steady or shrinking economy.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
Excellent post. I can't tell you how many people I know who misunderstand tax brackets and think they can be substantially penalized for earning an extra $1 if it puts them into a higher bracket.
Another factor I would add that even further detracts from that myth, since I saw you mention it, is FICA. (For non-US residents unaware of FICA, it is a separate federal payroll tax which funds Social Security and Medicare.) For 2008, an employee pays 6.2% up to $102,000 for FICA. If you compare to the US income tax brackets [moneychimp.com], any money you earn over that $102,000 up to $164,550 is being effectively taxed at 6.2% less than the $78,850 to $102,000 earned (considering Fed Income Tax plus FICA, the vast bulk of most payroll tax). The $164,550-$357,700 bracket raises the rate 5% on additional dollars earned, which still leaves you paying 1.2% less and only when you enter that top bracket are your additional dollars effectively taxed at a whopping 0.8% more than you were taxed for $78,850 to $102,000.
Bottom line, under the US federal tax system you never lose money by making money. In fact, it really doesn't look so progressive when you spell it out like that.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, that isn't even the worst misconception people have about taxes. Many people (most?) don't even realize that the taxes that come out of their paychecks are "withheld". They think that they have to pay one set of taxes through the year, and a seperate set of taxes at the end of the year. Just look at the tax preparation commercials that are now running where they are bragging that "95% of our customers receive a refund". They say it like it is their great service that gets the government to give you money and that the fact that you have been overpaying throughout the year has nothing to do with it.
Scarier yet are the commercials that ran last year by H&R Block. Their commercial boiled down to telling people that they should trust them with their money because they were holding a lottery.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Interesting)
It takes a while for the layoffs to hit the higher paid/more qualified people but it will. Unless things improve quickly, which they won't.
It is called the trickle up effect. The lower paid jobs can react to this quickly, because they have less money in the bank, and their employees are protected less by law.
Toilet Paper Survey (Score:5, Interesting)
From a non-scientific poll we conducted as undergraduates, we found some interesting results:
All of the science and engineering students we asked said the next sheet should go over. All of them. (About 14 people.)
The art students' inclination (8 of 12 people) was to put it under, with the other four simply saying "whichever way it ends up - I don't even look."
12/24 (Score:3, Interesting)
This doesn't answer the poster's question in the least (hey, this is Slashdot after all), but the wackiest schedule I ever worked was when I was deployed to Turkey in the military for 2 weeks.
There were only three of us to cover one around-the-clock job: a staff sergeant, another airman, and me. The sergeant made it so that both he and the other airman worked two consecutive 12-hour shifts and then had a full day off. The only way you can do that, though, is to make the third guy pull a 12-hour shift with the next 24 hours off with no "break" in the schedule. Think about it: 12 then 24. My work shift (and hence my off-hours) were completely inverted each cycle.
I was definitely pissed about it at first. But it's the military, who am I going to complain to? I went along with it, consoling myself that it was only for two weeks. But man, I gotta tell you, I got used to it in just a few days. You would think that it would be impossible to get used to a schedule where one day you're going to sleep at 6AM and the next day at 6PM, but it worked fine for me because it meant that I got to sleep for 8 hours straight and then wander the base (or do whatever) for another 8. It was because of this schedule that I got to get off base for awhile and go on some tours of the country.
I could almost do that schedule again over here since my sysadmin job doesn't tie me to any specific hours, but my wife would never agree to it. The biggest downfall is that I'd never get a "real" weekend without using up vacation time.
4x10s work for us (Score:3, Interesting)
Four other folks at our company work 4x10, including the CEO, and it works just fine. Friday is fucking sacrosanct: no emails, no phone calls, no contact of any kind. If a fire flares up, other people in the office deal with it.
And when I say 4x10, I mean it. We track our time pretty religiously, and our most bust-ass employee has averaged about 42 hours a week over 18 months.
And yes, we're a tech company
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously...I just have to believe salary is for suckers. They expect you to work over if 'needed'...but, do they happily let you leave early when your work is done?
In a word, yes. I understand where you're coming from - managing your own time is a sweet gig. But don't be so quick to dismiss a salary scheme. When run properly, it can be pretty decent. At my office when there's not much going on, not a lot of people work 40 hr weeks. When it's crunch time, you're going to see a lot of people putting in 60 on a regular basis. Pretty similar to what you described, actually. Work gets done on time, and nobody bats an eye if you work an entire week of half days. It's all in how you execute the salary scheme. I could see it being abused, for sure, but when it's not abused, it's a nice ride.
Re:Getting Customers to leave you alone Fridays (Score:4, Interesting)
This seems to be a very American (and Japanese) phenomenon. In Europe, it wouldn't even be legal to offer only 10 days of vacation time in many countries (possibly all of them, these days). Here in the UK, for someone working in a typical developer or sysadmin role in IT, I'd say somewhere around 25 days +/- 2 is fairly typical, plus the 8 public holidays (which is fewer than most other European countries get).
Some employers do say you lose whatever vacation allowance you don't use by the end of each year, but in reality only the kind of poor managers and die-hard workaholics who think employees who don't take vacations are more productive seem to fail to use up their allowances under these circumstances. IME, it's fairly typical for decent employers to set a cap of, say, 5 days rolling over: this avoids long-term employees building up a huge vacation allowance, but allows some flexibility and avoids everyone taking off half of December and leaving the office near-empty just to use up all their remaining leave.
Re:Crises (Score:4, Interesting)
why is "more money for more work" such a taboo? really?
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually wasn't aware of that (you know short of the post above this one), thanks for presenting this information in the most douchiest mother fucking assholiest way possible. No, seriously thanks. People are this fucking stupid because the concept is presented in a fucking stupid way.
But regardless, if your time is worth $x / hr (and you net $x / hr in your normal tax bracket), and after exceeding a certain threshold you start getting $y / hr such that $y $x (due to entering into a higher tax bracket), then you have just started selling your time at a loss. I have screwy logic though I suppose.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked this schedule several years ago as a night shift NOC monkey. I think I might go back if given the chance, despite the fact that I'd make about 1/4 the money I do now. Nothing like staffing a data center by yourself (or with one other person) in an empty building with nothing to do except write code, watch movies, play video games, order takeout, and wait for an alarm. Plus we had several OC-12s at a time when I was paying $150/mo for 768k SDSL.
You didn't get to see other people very often, but everything was just starting to open on your way home from work so running errands was a snap, your commute was the opposite way traffic was going, and shopping was easy because the grocery store was empty. I used to hit the health club downstairs, swim a couple miles, and be headed out to my car to go home just as the 9-5ers were rolling in.
Just thinking about it makes me dread riding the train into the city in a few hours. I need to go to sleep...
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:3, Interesting)
In Denmark tax rates are:
- 39% of $0 to $48,300
- 44% of $48,300 to $58,000
- 59% of $58,000 and up
Actually it's a lot more complicated than that, but it boils down to approx. the rates above...
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry. I paid my dues in construction and an iron foundry before getting a cushy tech job. Although oddly I find my software engineering job much more stressful.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been working that same schedule for the last year or so and love it. Every week I have Thursday morning through Sunday evening off, and every other week I get Wednesday off as well.
It's actually 36 and 48 for an average of 42 hours/week. However, I very much enjoy having that "long weekend" every weekend.
I'm currently doing remodeling work around the house and having a full day or two during the "workweek" to do these projects is almost crucial. I couldn't imagine accomplishing running wire and drywall in the evening after dinner and a bit more on Sunday when some of the stores close early.
On any job I've worked where I worked the "9-5, M-F" deal, I always hated getting of work and finding that various offices/banks/stores were closed. So many errands stack to get done "by noon on Saturday". If I couldn't do a flexible (4x10) schedule, I would try to shift my hours to earlier (7am-3pm) so I could do stuff in the afternoon.
When I was younger, I tried shifting my work schedule to later in the day: 10-8 or 11-9. I liked it at first because I like sleeping in and staying up late, but I soon discovered that I didn't have time for anything. I stayed up all night by myself and then slept till it was time to go to work. Once I forced myself to get up for a 7am shift a few times, I got used to it.
On a side note, I do Linux admin work at a 24x7 data-center and doing the home repair adds a nice sense of balance.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:1, Interesting)
Your tax rates for Canada are the FEDERAL tax rates, don't forget to add the PROVINCIAL tax rates above those. The total income tax rates gets above 50% pretty fast!
In all honesty, I'd rather have higher GST+TVQ and lower income taxes. The biggest tax burden should be on consumption, not income.
9/80 rocks! (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been doing 9/80's for ten years in the IT department here at the rocket ranch. This schedule is the best schedule I've ever worked in the 30+ years I've been a wage slave, and I've worked a lot of schedules -- split shift, rotating, days, swings, mids - you name it, I've probably worked it. The number one benefit for me is the three-day weekend that 9/80 generates every other week. With some judicious use of vacation time, I can take a lot of on-Fridays off as well, so that I can have even more three-day weekends, or the occasional four-day weekend by taking a vacation day on the Thursday preceding an off-Friday, or on the Monday following one. 9/80s make taking frequent mini-vacations feasible, which definitely keeps my morale high.
On a related note, working in IT means sometimes being available 24/7, but that goes with the territory. I don't think I'm being abused by management when they require me to be available on my off-Friday. As long as the compensation I receive from the company in return for being available is commensurate with the inconvenience of being on call, I have no problem with it. It is in my best interest, and the company's, to try to make sure that my services aren't needed on that off-Friday. The key here, as I see it, is that when I am on call, I get paid the same whether or not I get called in, and as long as that policy remains, I will remain with the company. I've worked on-call for companies that compensated me only if I actually was called in. My employer makes no distinction between being on call and actually being at work, when it comes to compensation. Recognizing that there is an opportunity cost for an employee on call is very important to me.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not including provincial income taxes which are generally significantly higher than state income taxes; and, with the exception of Alberta (I think), have the same progressive nature as federal income taxes.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:2, Interesting)
Show up at 10:00. 30 minute meeting for everyone to quickly discuss what they're doing/what needs doing.
Work like crazy for 2.5 hours. Take a group lunch break/meeting for 30 minutes, to quickly discuss progress/concerns.
Work like crazy for 1.5 hours. Have a 30 minute meeting to go over what was done/what needs to be done tomorrow. Work is done for the day (4:00pm).
I really feel like that could be super productive. Meetings would motivate and keep people on track, and knowing that your day will soon be over would further motivate you to keep working. I also feel like workspaces without walls would help discourage web-surfing, maybe also have people work side-by-side to be able to answer each other's questions.
These are just ideas of course, and may fail miserably in the real world, but even so I'd love to try it and tweak it until some variation at least could work. What does everyone else think?
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I arranged a similar thing after the birth of my baby. It was brilliant. I changed jobs for other reasons and had to go back to the normal schedule. I miss my every other Friday off. Sometimes, I took my daughter out of day care and spent the day with her. Sometimes, I sent her to day care like normal and got chores done so that my husband and I could both have more time with our daughter on the weekend.
You already have a lot of people on this thread boasting about how many hours they work. Whatever. I have generally worked 40 hour weeks (or 80 hours every two weeks) my entire career, and I have advanced up the ladder just fine, thank you. I always get good performance reviews and good raises. Working hard and getting a lot done does not require insane work hours, and I have rarely met anyone who could remain productive for all of the insane hours they "worked". Personally, I find I can sustain crazy hours for about two weeks, and I'll do that if I think whatever crisis needs handling is worth it.
Good luck- the system will work for you if you let it.
Re:80 hours (Score:4, Interesting)
Worse still, your employer probably isn't getting much for all your effort. I just finished a 12-month run of pretty consistent 70-hour weeks with the occasional 80- or 90-hour marathon thrown in for fun, including a (record, for me) run of 49 consecutive days worked. I was probably getting only about 1/3 as much work done per hour as I might when properly rested and working 45-50 hours a week.
Of course, I knew this at the time, too - the problem was that the alternative was taking a couple days off, which would mean that instead of getting (1/3) * (14/9) * 2 days' worth of work done in that time, I'd get nothing done. That would of course mean that when I got back I'd still have all the work that needed doing before, plus two more days' worth, and an extra 2 days' worth of schedule pressure added as well. While the first day back might be ok, I'd need to work extra hours to start catching up, and after another 12-14 hour day or two I'd be right back where I started: unproductive and working way too much, but even farther behind. It's really a Hobson's choice at that point.
Anyone can work extra time to get past a crisis or a single near-term deadline. But the constantly intensifying pressure of a looming but obviously unachievable deadline really makes scheduling your work a vicious circle. No matter how hard you work, the deadline will just keep getting pushed farther out, and there is no work schedule that would allow you to meet it. But you have to try, so you work more but get less done, and the pressure ratchets up another notch! Ugh. All you can really do is make whatever progress you can, try to stay sane, and look for any possible opportunity to dump work on others (who btw are probably just as loaded down as you are).
If you're in this spot, you have to really want to do whatever you're doing. If you don't, you should be looking for a new job and/or trying to get yourself onto the next RIF list. It doesn't really matter that "you have a family to feed" or whatever else you're telling yourself. As the parent said, you don't have any quality of life. You're just going to have to learn to get by on whatever pay is available to someone with your skills and experience willing to work hard 40-50 hours a week. That might mean less "stuff" in your life. So be it. Of course, the problem is that there are very few jobs available at all that don't require long hours; I blame the high fixed costs of hiring and compensating most developed-world workers. At many companies, these fixed costs are over 50% of total compensation cost. If employers stopped offering these large fixed-cost benefit packages, they could afford to hire enough workers to get the job done (and as a side benefit, their employees would be free to choose how to spend their money). Instead, they have an incentive to understaff and get more hours out of existing workers, amortizing all those fixed costs over a larger amount of work. And with a generally weak labour market - though frankly not nearly as bad as in 2001-2003 - they can really put the screws to you right now. A job that offers at least somewhat interesting work and mostly requires 40-50 hours a week is an absolute treasure, whatever it pays.
Fire Dept is the ultimate post-geek job (Score:1, Interesting)
I ditched the IT world after cashing out in dot.communism and joined the fire department as well. We work a killer schedule. Every other day for a week (4 x 24 hour shifts) then four days off, then another round of every other day for a week (another 4 x 24 hours) and then six days off. So we basically get a four day weekend and a week+ off every 28 days. AND we're allowed to freely trade amongst our ranks, so a guy that works opposite me at the same station and I have a deal where we trade one day each month, turning our six day into an eight day (and having to work one 72 hour shift).
I can take four shifts of vacation and have 17 days off. We get 14 shifts a year combined vacation/sick time. Take 10 shifts off and I get 30 days. I spent an entire month in Australia last year, and still had vacation time left from the yearly allotment.
The funny thing is, that when I left my consulting job (which I can still work during my off days), they all thought I was nuts. Now that the economy is in the crapper, they're all looking at my steady income and retirement package with covetous eyes. I'll retire at 57 with 90% of my highest years pay (assuming there is still a government in 20 years).
All this and I get to ride around in big red. And for those of you thinking it's too late, I got hired on at age 32. A guy in my training class was 36. Just put down that jelly donut and see the light!
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:1, Interesting)
You forgot
Canada: 0% for the first $8,000
Also, Canadian payroll taxes have been on the rise. CCP = 4.9%, EI = ~2%, = ~7%, or more than FICA.
Where Canada bites you is provincially. The middle class pays 10-24% provincial income tax, much more than state income taxes, although this varies quite a bit by province.
Ease of correcting mistakes (Score:3, Interesting)
Factory work, specifically assembly, is very prone to an actual loss of work output with excessive hours. When you're working with a thousand dollars of parts, and a simple mistake can make them into ten dollars of scrap metal, making sure your workforce works as many hours as they can before their error rate begins to spike is crucial.
Some would argue that, in the information age, it's easier to correct the mistakes that overwork & undersleep will lead you to. I'm not entirely sure this is correct... while fixing the extra '$' or misplaced ')' is an amazingly trivial task, finding it can be challenging.
Re:I'd rather have 4/36 (Score:1, Interesting)
You didn't include Provincial taxes which in Ontario would be...
first $36,848 21.05%
over $38,832 up to $77,664 31.68%
over $77,664 up to $79,572 37.44%
over $79,572 up to $126,264 38.01%
over $126,264 42.40%
Also these are CDN$, so your 80K job in the USA would be like 100K here on currency exchange alone. US companies typically pay better for the same work.
Re:80 hours (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:80 hours (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody wants to be sick, and nobody wants to die, and no one wants to go bankrupt from having to pay hospital bills either. The issue is that no one seems to know what the actual costs are of providing health care. All we have are biased numbers from various industries that are all intent on passing the blame onto someone else within the system.
Yet, we know that there must be inefficiency somewhere within the system, since other countries (like Britain, or Taiwan) are achieving statistically comparable outcomes while spending only a fraction of what we do? So where is the extra money going?