In one company I consulted for, a morning person almost got fired when a regional manager noticed he left 2 hours earlier than everyone else. It was hilarious, in the saddest possible way.
1) Managers scheduled meetings at 3:00 or even 4:00. "Yeah, I know you normally leave at 3:00, but this is the only time I could find where everyone was free." Dolt. I'm not free.
2) I'm sitting at my desk at 2:45 and someone walks in with a Problem. It's not something that can't wait until tomorrow in the great scheme of things. But they're planning to work until 7:00, and if I don't solve this problem they're going to be unable to do anything until tomorrow.
3) I'm in the groove. My fingers are flying, code is being created. Five or six mental balls are in the air. I'm in a mental state that doesn't happen all the time, or even every day. I don't want to stop, and it's time to go home. If I came in late like everyone else the longer I stay the better my commute. But since I came in early every minute I stay is two minutes I lose from my day. So do I shut down and leave, or do I mentally commit myself to staying for at least three more hours?
Beyond that, while being all alone is great if you have everything you need, I found people need input from me and vice versa quite a bit more often than I expected, which really cut down on the actual productivity.
My response would be to do the same at 2.
Since then, I come in at 08:00AM every morning, I get two and a half hours of productive work until people start coming in and the meetings start. Then I eat lunch and work for 3 more hours and I head for home. I never care about the looks I get from other people because I CMA.
What I want to say is that, as long as you have a Cover Your Ass document, you shouldn't care about how others negotiated their position.
I also requested extra days instead of a pay increase. Should I feel bad about that also?
Also this:
> I also requested extra days instead of a pay increase.
If your extra days are paid (I'm assuming they are given the latter part) then it may well be a smarter deal fiscally even without the pay increase, particularly if your marginal tax is high.
How could that possibly be the case?
You can also run your own company and earn extra during the off time.
I was asking specifically about 'fiscally' and, in particular, the mention of marginal tax rates.
Like at a previous job, core hours was 10:00am to 4:00pm. Some people came in at 7:30am and left at 4:00pm, some people didn't get in until 10:00am and left at 6:30pm. But from 10 to 4, everyone was supposed to be there.
People are stupid.
See you tomorrow.
Oh, is it that time already?
Leaving so soon?
Bye now.
And it may not be intentional, but it comes thru that way.
The easiest way to leave is to not say anything. Just grab your things and head out, which can come across as antisocial, but it avoids the awkwardness.
I've been working remotely for about 11 years. But my situation changed and I'll be commuting again. I'm actually looking forward to being in an office again.
Home time and work time do end up hopelessly intermingled, but it works both ways. The extra flexibility ends up giving me more time with my kids, I think.
I fail to see how this is "off the deep end", this is just the reality of modern American society.
For what it's worth, we've been getting really good at identifying these very early with tests that also hold little or no risk to the mother and baby (e.g. NIPT with free-cell fetal DNA). Of course, if there's moral objections to terminating such pregnancies even in the very early stages, that doesn't help.
reality of modern American society.
Yeah, that explains a lot. I understand daycare and healthcare aren't really subsidized here, apparently American society has problems with distributing the costs of childbearing over the population in order to encourage it. I guess they'll keep the population demographics at a sustainable level by immigration or something.
>I guess they'll keep the population demographics at a sustainable level by immigration or something.
Yep, that's exactly what they're doing. The people having all the kids are either immigrants (esp. Hispanic ones), or ultra-religious Christians. All the people supporting "liberal" values aren't having any kids because it's too much time and money. So I think we can look forward to something somewhat similar to what happened to the Islamic world: it used to be at the forefront of science and math, and then turned into what it is today when the clerics took over.
What does that have to do with anything? I never proposed banning having children. I merely advocated against it.
It's good for corporations because it doubles the labor supply, lowering wages for both men and women. States love it because they receive more income tax, since household work was previously untaxed. Families, especially children, are getting the shaft.
It IS progress, for individual women or single moms who weren't lucky enough to hook up with a good-enough husband, or who didn't want to go the traditional family-and-kids route in life. It's been detrimental to society overall however because it's become a norm, and almost a requirement for families to earn enough to stay out of the ghetto; families don't feel they have the luxury to have only one working parent because the cost-of-living is too high, and also, many women feel (usually correctly) that they'd commit career suicide by taking off a few years to be a stay-at-home mom, because companies don't value this and see workers who take a few years' break as no longer employable.
>Families, especially children, are getting the shaft.
Yep.