[jasonkostempski]

I don't think laws are the answer. Can anyone say spending time with family and friends are top priorities all day, everyday? I wouldn't want laws telling me they have to be. Sometimes making money to support your family is more important than spending time with them. Some people don't have a family to spend time with. Some people don't like their family or have any friends. Some people like their work and that's where they want to be more often than not.

[gambiting]

And some people have family and friends, but work 12 hours a day because everyone else is. I am very happy that in the EU there are hard limits on how much you can work in certain professions, when overworking is actually dangerous to other people - like truck drivers. You can only drive for 8 hours max before having to take a mandatory 12 hour stop - and then there is another 24 hour stop that you have to take once per week. If you get caught driving longer than limited by law the fines are heavy so everyone sticks to them, and people breaking the limits cause outrage in media as creating unsafe situations on the road. Of course you can drive your own personal car for as long as you want, it's only commercial drivers who have this limitation.

[lmm]

If one person works late then other people have to match them. So you end up with a tragedy of the commons/race to the bottom. Which is exactly the situation that calls for laws.

[gearhart]

That's a really interesting problem, but falling back on laws to protect you from it seems to be accepting a sub-par solution without having fully explored the issue. This is something that ought to be solved by measurement and corporate culture - if you can properly measure your output, this time-based race to the bottom shouldn't be an issue, it becomes an output-based race to the top, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just bow out of the race when you reach your work-life balance.

Quoting PG on HN is perhaps a bit like preaching to the choir but this is very appropriate: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

[lmm]

> if you can properly measure your output, this time-based race to the bottom shouldn't be an issue, it becomes an output-based race to the top, and there's nothing wrong with that, you just bow out of the race when you reach your work-life balance.

True, but the assumption is false. As an industry we're terrible at measuring outputs, and sadly this causes management to fall back on measuring inputs.

And even that, you don't get a free choice of. Working 75% as long as the rest of your team doesn't get you 75% of the salary, it gets you fired.

[acheron]

I in fact do work 75% time for 75% salary, and somehow I managed to work it out as a mutually voluntary arrangement with my employer without using the coercive power of the State.

[lmm]

Good for you, but that requires an unusually enlightened employer. There were some people who managed to arrange safe jobs in the pre-OHSA days. Doesn't mean government intervention wasn't necessary.

[MadManE]

Government intervention is only required when "The People" want something, but won't stand up for themselves to get it.

So instead they get their bully friend to force others to comply with their wishes.

[mseebach]

> If one person works late then other people have to match them

or risk being seen as working less hard as that person.

You missed a pretty important bit.