Hime wrote:Moggy wrote:Hime wrote:Moggy wrote:Hime wrote:Depends on your point of circumstance, some people would love the chance to work more and increase their income.
Yeah, I am sure people are desperate to be able to work for 100 hours a week.
I literally pointed out above that I have worked in that exact scenario. Also see people working in the city or competitive industries in which people wear hours worked as a badge of honour.
Yeah you said other people were working 75 hour weeks. That's not the same as you doing it and it is not the same as a 100 hour week.
And it is disgusting that some work cultures sees that as a "badge of honour" and appalling that wages in some industries are obviously so low that people would welcome the chance of actually earning some decent money.
75 or 100 hours a week is unhealthy.
Ok I didn't realise I needed to specifically point out that I had worked like that but well done
. 75 hours for a few years is arguably worse than 100 for a few months but competition on most hours worked.
But the badge of honour is often created by the people working the hours. Also you are massively underestimate greed, lots of people just want more money.
You said that
you had
literally worked in that exact scenario but your post said other people did. Maybe they were happy to, maybe they felt they had no choice.
It’s disgusting either way and is not a way of getting good results.
What if that is required because of emergency situations or there is literally no choice if you're in a 24 hour industry such as national infrastructure?
An emergency situation (natural disaster or war) is always going to be an exception.
A 24 hour industry should employ enough people to cope, without having to rely on people working 75 to 100 hours a week.
I don’t want to go for an operation with a surgeon who’s just finishing his 90 hour week.