[parennoob]

> take home homework and other things that blow up the 2.5-hour mark

I would think "take home" implies you take it home, i.e. do it in your own time. I don't know what your undefined "other things" are.

> The 2.5 hours will also scale up with the number of participants, 20 employees who are committing 2.5 each week (at very, very minimum) is a loss of 50 hours per week.

It is this sort of thinking that is super counterproductive. Even if one of those employees learns something simple, like how to programmatically create CSV files and import them into Excel, they will have saved thousands of man-hours.

You can't nickel-and-dime people's time like this. Philosophies like yours tend to end up with timing people's bathroom breaks and scathing articles in the newspaper; rarely successful companies.

[SomeStupidPoint]

Also, I have a very simple policy: I'm as strict about work hours as my employer is.

You want 40 hours, butts-in-seats, timed breaks? Fine, I'm circular filing that idea that's going to save you multiples of my salary each year because I thought of it at home during off-hours, and you weren't paying me for that time.

[mikekchar]

I am exactly the opposite. What you are saying (as far as I can tell) is "If management is going to be petty and stupid, then I am too". I think it is smart to avoid being taken advantage of, but I think what you are actually doing is enabling your management's stupid behaviour. If both sides have a hard line behaviour, it will never change.

Instead, I recommend showing the advantages of flexibility. "I worked overtime to give you this thing which would not have been possible under your rules, how about cutting me some slack as a reward?" Somebody has to budge first. Now, if they are only interested in sucking up as much of your time as possible and paying you as little as possible -- then they are being abusive. As in any abusive relationship, your top priority should be to get the heck out of there. As a fall back position, of course, you should protect yourself as much as possible, but having an a priori position of being just as petty as your boss will really only result in unhappiness for everyone.

[SomeStupidPoint]

It's not "being petty", it's "asserting boundaries" in an abusive situation. You clearly decided to read only half the hypothetical -- or do you think a workplace timing bathroom breaks isn't abusive?

Your post reads as an uncharitable brag about how you're better than me, even though you conclude by agreeing with me.

It's not my duty to go above and beyond for people who are trying to abuse and take advantage of economic needs to treat me as a work animal, not a person in hopes they learn a lesson. You can if you want to, but I think that attitude is what enables that behavior, not mine.

[mikekchar]

Let me put it this way: have you been able to improve the situation using your approach? It's not about a person being better than another person, it's about working in a way that is successful. I'm saying that the other side of the equation thinks that they have to treat people poorly or else people will take advantage of them. Your behaviour will only reinforce their belief. My challenge to you is to find a way show them that they are wrong. If you succeed, then life will be better for everyone, not simply tolerable for you.

It's not going to work all the time. Some people are jerks and there is no way to convince them to work together with other people. They just take everything they can and give nothing back. My experience is that these people are pretty rare, though. The vast majority of people who act like jerks do it because they are convinced that there is no other option. I'm not saying that you are being a jerk, but the attitude that you espouse just reinforces their view. They believe that they must take everything, or there will be nothing left for them. They believe that they can't give anything back because it will all be taken from them.

Give something back for free, even if they give nothing back. How much you give is still under your control. It won't always improve the situation, but my experience has been that it will sometimes improve the situation.

[SomeStupidPoint]

You're extrapolating an extreme hypothetical back to my baseline behavior in an uncharitable way.

You're also taking a single action to generalize to all my behavior -- for example, you're ignoring the possibility that I would both "forget" the out of hours idea, but present them with studies about how treating "knowledge workers" better leads to increased output or other similar "during work" activities that might influence their behavior.

You're also ignoring a slew of other concerns, ranging from my emotional health to my willingness to lock IP up with someone I perceive to be a negative actor in society.

All because you want to brag about how you're better than me and be "right".

[mikekchar]

Alright. Fair enough. Obviously I was not able to communicate my point in a way that was inoffensive. I apologise for that.

[aisofteng]

You sound awful to work with. It makes me appreciate how lucky I am to work someplace where everyone has good attitudes towards each other and their workplace.

[SomeStupidPoint]

I'm sorry, that's based on what?

If you honestly think me responding to a terrible work environment by refusing to do work outside of work hours or go above and beyond for the company makes me a bad coworker, I think you have a very distorted view of workplace relationships.

[tomelders]

Gotta side with SomeStupidPoint here. If an employer is going to whine about any deviation from the standard working hours on my part, then all extracurricular activity stops. You get the hours exactly and nothing more.

It doesn't matter when someone does their work. It matters that they did it, and did it well. Poisoning the water because someone is consitebtly 10 minutes late every morning is a signal to me that it's time to move on.