And more stupidity at work.....

[DrFaroohk]

So today we were almost finished with the first truckload of fish. Could've had it done in about 45 minutes. Only problem is, the second delivery wasn't scheduled to be in for another two hours. OH NOES!

So one of the supervisors starts telling people to slow down, because he'll "be damned if he's gonna give us an hour break. Y'all aint paid to sit out in your car and smoke!"

Ok so what's the difference? Sitting and doing nothing, while there's work to be done, is a bad thing, of course.

But if the work is done and there is literally nothing else to do, what's the big deal? The company pays us to process fish. If we process two thousand fish in three hours, or process two thousand fish in two hours and take an hour break, what is the fucking difference? Just the "principle" of the thing? The work is done, the fish are ready to be shipped, so what difference does it make to the boss one way or another? He's paid us for three hours, so how in the fuck does it cost him more/less either way?

[Rageaholic]

Yeah, working slower just to avoid breaks is pretty stupid.

I wonder what his reasoning is. It's probably something like "An hour break will look bad!" or "I must be in controll!". IDK, but I'd be curious to know what people are thinking when they make such idiotic decisions, if they are thinking at all.

[Plaidman]

Some people don't like paying others for doing nothing.

Put this way, if you were paying a neighbor 12 bucks an hour to say, watch your kids for eight hours, and you come back home at 6 hours, are you really going to pay your neighbor 96 dolllars, or are you paying 72 dollars?

It also opens up to people being lazy throughout the shift, proclaiming that they will get it done before time is up, seeing as they /always/ get done early, so he'll just take his break now. Then, when it's near the end of the shift and he not even close to being done, he'll still leave at his clock out time, because "That's the time I leave! This is me time, you want me, pay me over time".

Does it make sense? Debatable.
Does it suck? Yeah.
Do companies want to pay people to sit on their asses and do nothing?
No. why should they? Your doing nothing for them. Your not earning anything. It be best to clock you off for that hour so you can do what you want, and when it's time to work again, you can come back.

[DrFaroohk]

And i'd have no problem with that if they just clocked us out. But the babysitter analogy doesn't really work - we're not talking about time so much as production value.

Think about it like this: You're either paying someone to work at half speed for four hours, or work at full speed for two hours and then do nothing for two hours. What's the fucking difference? There is none.

It basically does come down to "it looks bad". Which is stupid. It "looks" bad? To whom? the bosses? You mean, the people in charge of the company who are supposed to understand how the business runs? Fuck off, you wankers in charge!

[Plaidman]

I was under a different impression.

That you would be angry because they would not pay you to do nothing. Sorry.

Well, I guess it comes down to this,

Be somewhat lazy for three hours as to be slower to keep up with work and get paid for three hours of work,

Or get done in two hour at max speed, and only get paid for those two hours.

However, getting done in two hours, and expecting to get paid for three hours, is what I disagree with.

[DrFaroohk]

Aye, and I'd have no problem with that, if we were allowed to leave. But when they don't tell us when the next truck comes, and we're required to be there, whether there's work or not, just to be ready for the truck, we should be paid for that. And the main thrust of what I disagree with is to stretch out the work so that god forbid we don't get that extra break.

If they could just say "ok, next truck will be in at 11, and its 10 now, so take an hour lunch off the clock." that'd be fine.