> free time
The employer is paying for that time, so... he should be doing something for the company.
Ideally, he'd tell them of his accomplishment and get a raise and a job helping other people automate their jobs, or something like that.
The employer is paying for that time, so... he should be doing something for the company.
Ideally, he'd tell them of his accomplishment and get a raise and a job helping other people automate their jobs, or something like that.
There is no way of something ideally happening in this case.
The amount of taking the higher moral ground on Stack and here (in only a few minutes) is laughable. He is a single parent trying to get things working for him and his son. He is even questioning himself about this. This puts him into 5% of the honest population. I am old enough to know that internet warriors of higher moral in real life are mostly, I say mostly scumbags who would do much worse than this guy.
To me, the test of whether he is being paid for results or time is whether he is paid more if the work required more than the 40 hours.
If you're on contract to work X hours and you're doing 20% of that, it's a "gray area"?
realistically he'll get fired because they don't need him anymore. his wages are booked as profit and distributed among shareholders ,-)
Initiating this however would include involuntary, unpaid consultancy about what part of the company can be automated.