How hard do you work?

[A Lark Ascending]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18144320

[BeBop]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18144320

I'm not even sure what country to place myself in, but my "timesheet" for October 2007 through March 2012 shows 92 hours a week. Yeah, I'm lovin' life.

[sidewinder]

"You work 108 hours more than the annual average for United Kingdom.

This is 37 hours more than the OECD average."

Slavery !

[papsrus]

Greece is No. 3?

I thought they were a bunch of early-retiring, government sucking, moped-riding, beach-combing layabouts who do nothing but eat, drink, smoke, dance, eat, fish, dance, smoke, dance, fish, eat and collect pensions. ... Have I been duped? Again?

And Russia No. 4? I wouldn't have guessed those two would be in the top 4.

As for myself, everyone but the French, Norwegians, Germans and the Netherlanders (Netherlanders?) works more hours than me. (shhhhh)

[A Lark Ascending]

I got:

You work 693 hours more than the annual average for United Kingdom.

This is 622 hours more than the OECD average.

Based on a 60 hour week minus 13 weeks x 5 days annual leave.

Doesn't include the hours I put in during the hols.

Can't match anywhere close to Bebop, though. That is ridiculous.

[JSngry]

Is the question how hard you work or how long you work?

[A Lark Ascending]

Is the question how hard you work or how long you work?

It's phrased as 'Who works the longest hours?'. It goes on to say:

The figures come from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), sometimes referred to as the rich countries' club, which gathers them from its 34 members. A global comparison of working hours is impossible because of the lack of comparable data. As Wesley Stephenson of BBC radio's More or Less programme explains, developing countries often work longer hours, but working longer doesn't necessarily mean working better

Edited May 24, 2012 by A Lark Ascending

[JSngry]

Or harder.

I mean, I've worked 12 hour days where it's been steady but relatively easy, and 8 hour days where I've busted my ass into a coma. Almost.

Then again, my job is a mandatory 40 hours with all the overtime I can eat, as long as the workload supports it, which it usually does. My personal preference is to have minimal (if any) carryover from one day to the next, so I get to proceed accordingly.

Volume & difficulty are seldom synonymous with the work I do, so I guess I'm an outlier, or whatever the dataticians call it when a reality doesn't return a result that fits into their grids. All I know is that I work long, and I work hard, but not always long and hard, which, hey, that's not work anyway!

[alocispepraluger102]

what's it like to work?

i have ve been retired 5 years, and i mean retired.

[BeBop]

The bad news/good news for me is that I'm going to have to/get to retire "early". And I'll be enjoying Boiled Shoestring Soup in my Golden Years.

[Pete C]

You work 185 hours more than the annual average for United States.

This is 162 hours more than the OECD average.

However, I have a job where the workload really varies depending on time of year (I work in editorial for a retail chain). So from October through January I'm always busy, and the rest of the year it really varies, but from April through July I have quite a lot of down time. I still have to be in, but I can put my feet up on the desk and dream of a better day.

[kinuta]

Retired. Just do a few hours to help with the bills.

You work 1637 hours less than the annual average for Japan.

This is 1622 hours less than the OECD average

[papsrus]

Amused that the ad at the bottom of this page (at least when I posted this) reads: "Want to Retire in Panama?" These ads are really targeted quite well.

My actual numbers, which I failed to include above, and which I consider to be a great personal accomplishment: "You work 210 hours less than the annual average for United States. This is 233 hours less than the OECD average."

It would have been skewed even more, but I had my five weeks vacation cut back to four when the private equity suits took over earlier this year.

Still can't get over how hard those Greeks work. Productivity must be another matter.

Edited May 25, 2012 by papsrus

[Dave James]

Some of this depends on how you define work. If "work" means being where you go to earn a living, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, it means how much actual productive time you spend doing what you're paid to do, that's something else entirely. While someone may say they "work" a 60 hour week, if you screw around 20 of those hours, then you've really only worked 40. Work means work.

I was in management for most of my 36 year career. After a number of years of paying attention to what actually went on in the office I began espousing the 4/8 theory. This postulates that you're doing pretty well if you can get four hours of actual work out of an average employee in an eight hour day. Next Monday morning, see how long it takes more than a few of your co-workers to actually get down to business. What with recounting their weekends, sports talk TV talk, baby/child talk, most people don't really get underway for at least a half an hour or even more. Also take into account the "drop ins" who come by to talk about all manner of things not involving work during the day. Then there are the 15 minute breaks that turn into 30, 45 minute lunches that go an hour or more and, God help us if you have smokers working for you. Further, consider this. Even if you spend just 10 minutes getting ready to go to work in the morning and 10 minutes getting ready to leave in the evening, in an average year consisting of 50 five day weeks (reduced by two for vacation) then you've just "wasted" 20 minutes a day, 1.8 hours a week, 7.9 hours a month and 95 hours a year, or almost 12 days just getting ready to go to work and getting ready to leave. Hence, the 4/8 theory.

[.:.impossible]

Dave you just summarized exactly what I simultaneously miss and don't miss about an office environment.

[JSngry]

I have the privilege to work from home. So I get to do office-type work in a non-office environment.

It's a good thing, it is.

[cih]

Some of this depends on how you define work. If "work" means being where you go to earn a living, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, it means how much actual productive time you spend doing what you're paid to do, that's something else entirely. While someone may say they "work" a 60 hour week, if you screw around 20 of those hours, then you've really only worked 40. Work means work.

Well, where I work the management are inefficient, and don't really know how the company (in terms of the staff) work with one another and get things done. Projects are sat on for days and then presented with confusing briefs and impossible deadlines, and decisions are not left to the people employed to make those decisions, instead the same directors change things to their own personal view every time. Some days you might sit around for hours doing nothing and then a director comes in 5 minutes before close and says they need something doing urgently (it's always urgent) so you have to stay over an hour or two (unpaid) to do it. I work long hours, some months it's non-stop 'doing' - other times there's a lot of sitting about - but either way I'm at work, not with my family or anywhere I'd want to be and any inactivity is largely due to a lack of communication company-wide. The people I work with are great, so there are definite plus-sides but these have nothing to do with what the directors have put in place. If you do good for a sustained period you get a 'management' role which is impotent and just a title.

I'm sure some employees do 'screw around' but so do some managers - even if that just means a two-hour lunch break or unecessarily long schmoozy phone calls

[Jazzmoose]

I'll have to tell the boss I'm entitled to another 22 hours this year.

[Pete C]

When I worked in IT for global financial institutions, the inefficiencies boggled the mind. When I started a contract at one now defunct big brokerage firm in 2006 it took close to 3 weeks to even get me access to their systems, so I and the consulting company were getting paid for me twiddling my thumbs full time. I also worked on several multimillion dollar multiyear projects that had the plug pulled after maybe 75% of the work had been completed.

[Dave James]

Oops. I overlooked the biggest time waster of them all, the internet. At my company, everyone has virtually unlimited access to the web. A few sites are blocked but others, the ones like ESPN, CNN, Amazon, eBay and, of course, Organissimo, are freely accessible. In spite of the fact that the company knows how often and how long these sites are visited in the aggregate, and can even break it down to individual utilization, there are no limits placed on employee access. When a company has the ability to block, say, the top 10 non-work related websites and they don't take advantage of it, it's like they've consciously chosen to shoot themselves in their own foot. Didn't get it then. Don't get it now.

[Pete C]

Oops. I overlooked the biggest time waster of them all, the internet. At my company, everyone has virtually unlimited access to the web. A few sites are blocked but others, the ones like ESPN, CNN, Amazon, eBay and, of course, Organissimo, are freely accessible. In spite of the fact that the company knows how often and how long these sites are visited in the aggregate, and can even break it down to individual utilization, there are no limits placed on employee access. When a company has the ability to block, say, the top 10 non-work related websites and they don't take advantage of it, it's like they've consciously chosen to shoot themselves in their own foot. Didn't get it then. Don't get it now.

Because maybe workers who have certain freedoms, respect and ways to blow off steam, take breaks, and utilize down time (I have a lot of it, but I have to be on call at my desk) are ultimately happier, possibly at least as productive, and less likely to leave?

Edited May 25, 2012 by Pete C

[cih]

Oops. I overlooked the biggest time waster of them all, the internet. At my company, everyone has virtually unlimited access to the web. A few sites are blocked but others, the ones like ESPN, CNN, Amazon, eBay and, of course, Organissimo, are freely accessible. In spite of the fact that the company knows how often and how long these sites are visited in the aggregate, and can even break it down to individual utilization, there are no limits placed on employee access. When a company has the ability to block, say, the top 10 non-work related websites and they don't take advantage of it, it's like they've consciously chosen to shoot themselves in their own foot. Didn't get it then. Don't get it now.

Because maybe workers who have certain freedoms, respect and ways to blow off steam, take breaks, and utilize down time (I have a lot of it, but I have to be on call at my desk) are ultimately happier, possibly at least as productive, and less likely to leave?

exactly

[JSngry]

x2

[Dave James]

A great example of the employee management dichotomy. I'm not saying that some internet utilization is a bad thing, but at what point do reasonable levels of use cross the line and become abusive? When I started working in 1973, there was no internet. When it did became available, you had to apply for and be granted access. Then, the company opened it up for purposes of employee benefit enrollment and then to general availability. While you may disagree with me, the internet is not a workplace entitlement, it's a privilege. And, just like with any privilege, there's an expectation of that folks will manage themselves appropriately. The problem, at least in my experience, is that they don't. No great shock considering the highly addictive qualities of the medium.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Dave James

[Pete C]

A great example of the employee management dichotomy.

There is definitely a dichotomy. For instance, I've always found there to be a higher proportion of assholes among the managerial class, and at least as much incompetence.