

Ask HN: Why don't employees negotiate work week hours as often as salary? - vicapow

Why is it so rare and/or a bad idea for employers?
======
helen842000
It's because it makes you sound like a clock watcher.

There's also the hours vs productivity issue. Managers STILL would rather you
were less productive but in the office for more hours. Even though it makes no
sense.

With a salary it's often implied that you'll be there until the job is done
and 9-5 is a minimum. So to negotiate hours is like saying "can I do less work
for the same money?"

I always find myself happier in a job where I can negotiate my hourly rate and
my weeks work can fluctuate.

I fought really hard at my last contract to get a 35 hour week over 4 days. It
lasted a while and then they said they needed me to be there 5 days - still 35
hours though. They gained nothing except to distrupt my work/life balance.

It really gets me how some people come in super early but then spend their day
actively avoiding work.

In my shorter working week I fixed more issues, took more calls, worked
through every job role in the department, built a productivity system to
actually prove what we were achieving and presented 2 ideas to save the
company £200k every year (they're implementing them now)

Yet those that punch the clock and rack up the hours are preferred!

------
zabuni
Because of external costs, like healthcare, and training, one employee working
40 hours has a lot more utility than 2 working 20. This is especially true
with the large differences nn productivity from person to person, especially
in software.

This is also why people crunch, and demand over time. Productivity goes down,
but each individual hour worked is still better than getting some fool off the
street.

~~~
notahacker
I'd be surprised if the same economies still apply when choosing between one
employee working 90 hours a week or two working 45 though, assuming we're not
talking about people with the acumen and incentives of startup founders or
law-firm partners.

------
jessriedel
Zambuni's comment is definitely true, although I don't think it accounts for
the incredible uniformity of the 40-hour work week. (For instance, if
employees properly valued healthcare as compensation, then the 20-hour
employees would rationally accept less than half the pay of a 40-hour
employee.)

There are other contributing "signaling" effects which are postulated, e.g. if
you tell a future employer you only want to work 20 hours they take this as a
sign that you are lazy or not committed. These signaling effects result in an
inefficient market (i.e. a non-optimal work schedule is negotiated) and have
been used to justify government intervention. It seems surprising that
signally effects could be this large, but people also argue that most college
educations are essentially zero value-added and serve only signaling functions
as well. I've been influence a lot by economist Robin Hanson in this
direction, and you can find to read from him.

Lots of disagreement among academics, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

------
ewokhead
I just show up and leave when I want. Being the average human I only think
about things that impact me. Rather short sighted and selfish I know. But I
have never thought about why people do not negotiate work hours because I
assumed everyone did because it is what I negotiate hours when I decide to
sign on somewhere.

I think that it rather obvious that people are comfortable with accepting the
status quo. 9-5 is the standard workday. Because it is the "standard" people
do not question it.

Going back to the original question, it is not a bad idea to negotiate work
week hours.

I always negotiate work week hours. If a job requires that I show up at a
certain time, I don't take the job. The job needs me. I do not need the job.
As long as I ship, they should not care when I show up or don't show up.

It is an antiquated belief system that dictates work hours.

~~~
bennyg
I see what you're saying, but if your work is entirely dependent on others
working with you and vice versa, then I don't think that mentality works. If
what you're doing depends on Bob's work, and Bob's work depends on what you're
doing, then the best solution is to have you and Bob work together at the same
time. The easiest way for that to happen is for both you and Bob to have a
schedule with a _little_ bit of flex in it, that overlaps for a significant
portion of each other's schedule.

------
j2bax
It really depends on the field you are in. I work in an environment where
clients on both coasts require consistent hours and unfortunately the managers
can only help our clients to a certain extent before they actually need
someone with tech know how. Someday I'd like to cut a day of my work week out
but for the time being I enjoy a consistent mon-fri 8-5 with occasional
overtime. It helps that I work in a pretty chill work environment with
friendly people.

------
jlengrand
I did.

Sliding my working hours by two hours (now starting at 7 io 9)allowed me to
save 200euros/m on train tickets.

Way easier to agree on that with the bosse than to discuss a 200e/m additional
raise :).

Best deal I ever made imho.

(I live 1h from work)

------
iurisilvio
Local laws can enforce hours/day for example. It can be a legal issue to the
company if it does not follow the rules. In these cases, hours are not really
negotiable.

------
pasbesoin
A prescript to the following: If this bothers you, then GOOD! My advice is to
recognize and avoid such organizations when you can. Save yourself potentially
years of agony. Nonetheless, you'll run into it a lot -- even if it's when
you're encountering it with a third party with whom you interact.

Also, there are times when teamwork does require concurrent attendance. But...
that's not what I'm talking about, below.

\--

Appearance.

Many of us are familiar with the advantages "attractive" people accrue in
various situations (including employment, not infrequently -- speaking
generally).

Well, appearance matters also in matters of attendance. (And dress, and a few
other things, for that matter.)

If you aren't in your chair during the "prescribed" hours, your boss may feel
it makes them look bad. And, they may be right. Whether "timely attendance"
improves your actual performance may be secondary to this concern, from the
organization's perspective.

(Many here might argue it's actually counter-productive to their performance.
But... that's not primary to the organization. Yep, that's right -- it's not
primary to the organization.)

Plus, they may well think that "if we do it for one person, we'll have to do
it for all people".

Ever notice how organizations are very circumspect about what they pay their
employees? (I mean, particularly, _within_ the organization. And yes, the
question is largely rhetorical.)

Well, it's similar with hours. Only, other employees can "see" the
"allowances" made to you. The organization is afraid they'll start asking for
-- or insisting upon -- the same.

At which point, you need a significantly different organizational model -- one
that can handle flex hours and/or offsite workers and all that.

They're not going to tackle that, just for your. And many managements won't
tackle it until they're dragged into it, kicking and screaming. (Business
management, for the most part, is a very _conservative_ activity and mindset.)

P.S. Personally, I've watched many employees talk away literally hours of
their workdays -- chitchat with coworkers, on the cell phone, etc. And I've
cleaned up a lot of their messes.

But, they were in their chairs on time, and they "tried". And they towed the
line -- whatever line -- their managers espoused. And that was often,
ultimately, more valued and rewarded than high, but non-standard, performance.

P.P.S. I guess one might think or argue that when hours are formally
negotiated, the provides some explanation and shelter for the boss.

However, many organizations don't provide middle management with the authority
to negotiate hours. And... I recall from my own experience more than one memo
coming down from senior management that stated the likes of: "No more virtual
work plans"; "Acceptable starting hour range changed from [this range] to
[smaller range]"; etc.

It may be "easier" to pay you more (or less) -- generally non-public or non-
publicized information -- than to let you be consistently absent when others
are expected to be present.

Appearance.

