Get your fat ■■■ down the road, still time to use. Some industries know how many hours are reasonable.
mrginge:
Get your fat ■■■ down the road, still time to use. Some industries know how many hours are reasonable.
Other than admin costs why would employing twice as many staff working half as many hours cost the employers any more in wages. 
Oh wait half as many staff working twice as many hours means double the labour supply. 
I heard that story
People complaining of being bullied forced to work 18 hours a day etc
But what don’t hear and I know.its. no excuse .
But. There all bankers/ work.in finance.
And are on.very good money
.unlike us truck drivers .
edd1974:
I heard that story
People complaining of being bullied forced to work 18 hours a day etcBut what don’t hear and I know.its. no excuse .
But. There all bankers/ work.in finance.
And are on.very good money
.unlike us truck drivers .
When your bonus runs into £250,000 per year on top of a £100,000 salary I would happily work 18 hour days.
msgyorkie:
When your bonus runs into £250,000 per year on top of a £100,000 salary I would happily work 18 hour days.
Yep a race to be the highest inheritance tax payer in the graveyard.
Carryfast:
msgyorkie:
When your bonus runs into £250,000 per year on top of a £100,000 salary I would happily work 18 hour days.Yep a race to be the highest inheritance tax payer in the graveyard.
Sorry CF, but that simple response perfectly sums you and your work ethic up. The possibility that some banker might end up retiring a millionaire in his early forties wouldn’t even figure on your radar would it?
When a banker says he/she has been working for 15 - 18 hours, that simply means the difference between when work started and finished. There could well have been numerous breakfast / lunch / dinner breaks during that time. Poor old driver has a few sarnies to last him/her fifteen hours and then he/she possibly has to drive home and make dinner before even being able to think about getting some sleep. I suppose a lucky few drivers may have the luxury of getting a canteen during the day or a 3-4 hour rest in the middle, but not guaranteed by any means.
If anyone truly did work constantly for 15-18 hours, brain cognitive function would be affected the next day and would subsequently get worse and worse. It doesn’t really matter if someone says “I’m fine”, because they aren’t.
the maoster:
Carryfast:
msgyorkie:
When your bonus runs into £250,000 per year on top of a £100,000 salary I would happily work 18 hour days.Yep a race to be the highest inheritance tax payer in the graveyard.
Sorry CF, but that simple response perfectly sums you and your work ethic up. The possibility that some banker might end up retiring a millionaire in his early forties wouldn’t even figure on your radar would it?
Militant doesn’t mean lazy.
If you work and do your best you’ll get the sack like all the rest.
The work is hard the pay is small so take your time ( on and off the job ) and sod em all.
Or on your tombstone neatly laquered these three words just bleedin knackered.
( 1970’s factory work ethic and proud of it ). 
Zb Bankers falling victim to their own greed driven work ethic.Karma can be a ■■■■■.No sympathy here. 
mrginge:
Get your fat ■■■ down the road, still time to use. Some industries know how many hours are reasonable.
So they knew about the report back in earlier in the year but did nothing, it wasn’t until it went public but they decided they were going to do something about it. Sums up the big bosses quite considerably doesn’t it.
As I now work four on three off, I do like my 45 hour week compare to previously where it was up to 60 or 70.
There is a work home life balance, and some of us need to reach that safely in our lifetime. It’s pointless waiting until it’s too late, because when you’re burnt out, that’s it.
Carryfast:
Militant doesn’t mean lazy.
/
There’s always an exception to the rule…
Carryfast:
mrginge:
Get your fat ■■■ down the road, still time to use. Some industries know how many hours are reasonable.Other than admin costs why would employing twice as many staff working half as many hours cost the employers any more in wages.
Oh wait half as many staff working twice as many hours means double the labour supply.
Employing twice as many will cost more because that second half of the workforce will want higher rates than the first half (or will want the same rates but will be less competent), and the first half will also want higher rates when their customary hours are cut back and they aren’t facing so much competition for the job from the unemployed man.
Although I think employers are finally finding themselves on the other horn of the dilemma, because conditions and working hours have often become so extreme that most workers won’t even countenance them (and effectively competiton for such jobs has ceased), so that those workers accustomed to dragging it out for every possible hour behind the wheel, are now in very heavy demand relative to their supply.
Carryfast:
Militant doesn’t mean lazy.
If you work and do your best you’ll get the sack like all the rest.
The work is hard the pay is small so take your time ( on and off the job ) and sod em all.
Or on your tombstone neatly laquered these three words just bleedin knackered.
( 1970’s factory work ethic and proud of it ).
IIRC you missed a line out. I think it goes:
If you work and do your best, you’ll get the sack like all the rest.
But if you laze and bugger about you’ll live to see the job right out.
The work is hard, the pay is small, so take your time and ■■■■ 'em all
Else on your tombstone, neatly lacquered, you’ll see these words: ‘Just Bloody Knackered!’
At least, thats the version I remember! 
WhiteTruckMan:
Carryfast:
Militant doesn’t mean lazy.
If you work and do your best you’ll get the sack like all the rest.
The work is hard the pay is small so take your time ( on and off the job ) and sod em all.
Or on your tombstone neatly laquered these three words just bleedin knackered.
( 1970’s factory work ethic and proud of it ).IIRC you missed a line out. I think it goes:
If you work and do your best, you’ll get the sack like all the rest.
But if you laze and bugger about you’ll live to see the job right out.The work is hard, the pay is small, so take your time and [zb] 'em all
Else on your tombstone, neatly lacquered, you’ll see these words: ‘Just Bloody Knackered!’At least, thats the version I remember!
I deliberately left it out it was only the last bit that mattered in this case.
Bleedin bankers as I said karma. 
Rjan:
Carryfast:
mrginge:
Get your fat ■■■ down the road, still time to use. Some industries know how many hours are reasonable.Other than admin costs why would employing twice as many staff working half as many hours cost the employers any more in wages.
Oh wait half as many staff working twice as many hours means double the labour supply.
Employing twice as many will cost more because that second half of the workforce will want higher rates than the first half (or will want the same rates but will be less competent), and the first half will also want higher rates when their customary hours are cut back and they aren’t facing so much competition for the job from the unemployed man.
Although I think employers are finally finding themselves on the other horn of the dilemma, because conditions and working hours have often become so extreme that most workers won’t even countenance them (and effectively competiton for such jobs has ceased), so that those workers accustomed to dragging it out for every possible hour behind the wheel, are now in very heavy demand relative to their supply.
Why the premise that twice as many workers working half as many hours would justify a higher hourly rate.
But I can see how the resulting reduction in the labour supply would create that situation.Which is bad for the worker how.
Carryfast:
Why the premise that twice as many workers working half as many hours would justify a higher hourly rate.
Because the “first half” have already won a reverse auction for their labour, so it follows that the second half if anything want more pay, or else they are (from the employer’s perspective, I mean) the less desirable half.
But I can see how the resulting reduction in the labour supply would create that situation.Which is bad for the worker how.
It isn’t bad for the worker. I was just explaining the employer’s logic. You asked, rhetorically it seems, why employing twice as many, would cost more (per man-hour) in wages.
As I also mentioned though, this only goes so far, and once the conditions on the job become worse than in Hades, then the employers will face a massive abundance of spare labour, but very little of which is actually willing to work for them at any price. This is why the Tories years ago told the industry mouthpieces to go away with their begging bowl, and just improve the conditions of the industry.
The more I learn about you Carryfast, the more I understand your total failure.
It’s your sort of work ethic that makes imported labour so attractive.
Star down under.:
The more I learn about you Carryfast, the more I understand your total failure.
It’s your sort of work ethic that makes imported labour so attractive.
Ironically it was my back that failed because of too much manual handling being used a labourer not a driver and not saying no and walking away from it. 
Work ethic you mean like how the Chinese slave labour work ethic is more welcome in Australia than Brits are.Good luck with that.Australia might as well have fought for Ho Chi Minh.