My day started extra early, as I had gone to bed at 9:30 but didn't actually fall off the cliff till maybe midnight: I vaguely recall hearing Dixon come home; I was awake at 6 and change this morning. I was not groggy, so I made myself a cuppajoe and then went back to bed to read and ponder and rest up.
Was actually out of bed at 8, fed the muppets and myself, did a bit of morning scribbling and set up a couple of things in my game so I could keep that happening all day. Had a bus snafu that caused me to head in to work a good two hours later than planned but I put the time to good use with a more through than usual clean of the kitchen, including sweeping the floors in kitchen, living room and foyer. I left the house to meet my boss in Langley for 1.
Shovelled poop for a few hours, then taught a lesson, with an often-rewarding student, then headed for the bus at 5:45. I had to hit a store to pick up some soft foods (for Sammie and for me), so I got home about 7:30 took the dogs for their nightly walk, and
It's 8:30 pm and I am home, settled and waiting for dinner to cool. I am pleasantly tired, but not exhausted. I took the evenings meds, and will eat a good (liquid, due to gaping holes in my gumline) dinner, play a bit on my game, blog a bit and maybe even write tonight.
So it was a full day.
I know that I am actually lucky. I work in a field where I control my hours and efforts, and I can put in as much or as little as I can afford to what I do. I could advertise heavily and chase down clients, I could write more intensely and shop my work around, but I have enough work to pay the bills, and much of my time is my own to spend as I wish. That said, I have a guaranteed income due to my handicapped status, and without that, my life would be a similar cycle of exhaustion, frustration and depression too, that so many of my friends experience.
So, as it happens, the 40 hour work week is not "normal" to the human biomechanics. I recall a study from years back that looked at the human circadian rhythms and productivity maps, and the outcome of that was that a 23 hour work week is much more suited to maximised human effort and a much better balance between work and life.
It is a combination of cultural and societal factors that make the 40 hour week the norm, even as over-work is celebrated as "dedication" or "drive". It's making us sicker, and it runs directly counter to the actual fact of things: that as our society gets more computerised and more focused on digital technologies, we need the 40 hour week and the static workplace less and less. Here is an interesting article examining why.
One of the points mentioned in that article is how difficult it would be to be at the forefront of this revolution, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's not as hard as it sounds. It means more employees working fewer hours for the same amount of money and benefits. So a company like 7-11, which I used to work for, and still have very fond memories of, could hire four workers for every 3 "full time" positions. Schedule four 6 hour shifts a day instead of three at 8 hours each. Treat them as full time, with the same access to benefits, etc, and pay them commensurate salaries as the full-time positions, but get heightened productivity and healthier employees.
It's not hard, although it might cut into profit margins for a few years, while the rest of society catches up. But I'd lay strong odds that it would make for better employee relations and a much better corporate culture, and I didn't have that much of an issue with 7-11's corporate operations. One thing they really struggled withwas employee retention, and this could easily contribute to a solution.
Certainly it is my hope that my sons may find themselves in these sorts of jobs as time progresses. It's odd and symptomatic of a certain societal sickness that I am "lucky" to suffer a crippling disease.
Was actually out of bed at 8, fed the muppets and myself, did a bit of morning scribbling and set up a couple of things in my game so I could keep that happening all day. Had a bus snafu that caused me to head in to work a good two hours later than planned but I put the time to good use with a more through than usual clean of the kitchen, including sweeping the floors in kitchen, living room and foyer. I left the house to meet my boss in Langley for 1.
Shovelled poop for a few hours, then taught a lesson, with an often-rewarding student, then headed for the bus at 5:45. I had to hit a store to pick up some soft foods (for Sammie and for me), so I got home about 7:30 took the dogs for their nightly walk, and
It's 8:30 pm and I am home, settled and waiting for dinner to cool. I am pleasantly tired, but not exhausted. I took the evenings meds, and will eat a good (liquid, due to gaping holes in my gumline) dinner, play a bit on my game, blog a bit and maybe even write tonight.
So it was a full day.
I know that I am actually lucky. I work in a field where I control my hours and efforts, and I can put in as much or as little as I can afford to what I do. I could advertise heavily and chase down clients, I could write more intensely and shop my work around, but I have enough work to pay the bills, and much of my time is my own to spend as I wish. That said, I have a guaranteed income due to my handicapped status, and without that, my life would be a similar cycle of exhaustion, frustration and depression too, that so many of my friends experience.
So, as it happens, the 40 hour work week is not "normal" to the human biomechanics. I recall a study from years back that looked at the human circadian rhythms and productivity maps, and the outcome of that was that a 23 hour work week is much more suited to maximised human effort and a much better balance between work and life.
It is a combination of cultural and societal factors that make the 40 hour week the norm, even as over-work is celebrated as "dedication" or "drive". It's making us sicker, and it runs directly counter to the actual fact of things: that as our society gets more computerised and more focused on digital technologies, we need the 40 hour week and the static workplace less and less. Here is an interesting article examining why.
One of the points mentioned in that article is how difficult it would be to be at the forefront of this revolution, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's not as hard as it sounds. It means more employees working fewer hours for the same amount of money and benefits. So a company like 7-11, which I used to work for, and still have very fond memories of, could hire four workers for every 3 "full time" positions. Schedule four 6 hour shifts a day instead of three at 8 hours each. Treat them as full time, with the same access to benefits, etc, and pay them commensurate salaries as the full-time positions, but get heightened productivity and healthier employees.
It's not hard, although it might cut into profit margins for a few years, while the rest of society catches up. But I'd lay strong odds that it would make for better employee relations and a much better corporate culture, and I didn't have that much of an issue with 7-11's corporate operations. One thing they really struggled withwas employee retention, and this could easily contribute to a solution.
Certainly it is my hope that my sons may find themselves in these sorts of jobs as time progresses. It's odd and symptomatic of a certain societal sickness that I am "lucky" to suffer a crippling disease.
Comments
Post a Comment