• trslim@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I work at like… 40% over the whole week? Thats what they pay for, so thats what they get.

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    It is literally impossible to be 100% productive at work - even machines start to break down if they’re constantly being run at full capacity.

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Design them to work up to 1500w and limit “100%” to 750w. Now you can always run at 100% just fine.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Gotcha, so when the boss tells me to “give 110%” I can go ahead and translate that to 55%.

        And then not do that either.

  • The Menemen!@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    24 hours ago

    I get most of my work done on friday afternoons. It is also the only time of the week when I actually enjoy work. Finally I can relax, knowing the phone won’t ring. (And I start feuds with anyone who calls me on my workphone on friday afternoons!).

    • yarr@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I always give 100 percent of what I get paid. Minimum wage equals minimum effort.

      That seems acceptable, but I’m not sure what that does for your chances of promotion. Typically people move up by doing more than they are obligated to do.

      • don@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 minutes ago

        Welcome to the Peter Principle:

        The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to “a level of respective incompetence”: employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle?wprov=sfti1

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Promotion? You mean the guy who gets paid worse than hourly because they’re expected to do unlimited overtime on their salary? Haha no thanks.

  • segabased@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    We need to normalize not just starting worker owned and run co-ops, but taking over businesses and converting them to these co-ops.

    Federate the co-ops, establish a shared workforce (one co-op goes under/not enough business at x? Come work at y) and have them become actual workers councils

    The Marxist critiques of this are not lost on me, co-ops are not immune to exploitation and fool proof by virtue of existing under capitalism but I think we need them for two reasons:

    Sitting around and waiting for a revolution from a small group of people with one idea of how to run things is a bad idea

    We need to practice what actual day to day life will look like. I think the experiences and connections made will far outweigh all of the bookclubs, protests and other purely political avenues of organizing

    It doesn’t need to be all central planning and state owned, it doesn’t all have to be zaney pure communal experimentation right from the start …people could just literally experience going to work at a normal job but feel the agency of having a say in their workplace, not live in fear of an overbearing boss, decide their wages, always have a place in case their job implodes or they become redundant (bounce to co-op y).

    • cqst [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sitting around and waiting for a revolution from a small group of people with one idea of how to run things is a bad idea

      This is just a strawman of vanguardism . The bolshevik revolution was only possible with the overwhelming support of the peasants and proletariat class. A revolution is literally not possible without huge numbers of soldiers turning on the government.

      • segabased@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I don’t disagree with this, but even in your statement they had overwhelming support of proletariat. There will be no vanguard if we don’t have an organized, unionized, proletariat. So I still think as it stands we’re just waiting around for a small group of people to do the revolution and just accept their conception. Which would be a bad idea, which is why I think workers need to realize aspects of this world that is worth fighting for right now

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      What is the name for a strategy to cut out shareholders?

      I imagine it’s something like, we syrike and demand 60% of controlling shares or else company dies.

      Price tanks, workers buy their own discounted shares.

      5 years later do it again, seize 60% of the remainder.

      Continue until shareholders are fully marginalized and financing is done through regular finite terms loans. Preferably from loans direct from the central bank at the policy rate.

  • Synapse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    To be honest, with my current job, I would have a 4 days work week, it would change absolutely nothing. I wouldn’t even have to work more on the other days.

    • Kyouki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Wish this was acceptable to work as, I sit in the same position. I think I am averagely productive at only 23% of the days…

  • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    I mean, the counter-argument is that nothing is stopping you from creating such a co-op today. You not doing it is seen as a point in favor of capitalism/ruling class.

    Show them wrong?

    • space_iio@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 days ago

      Funding is stopping me. Lack of investment money to get started. Access to capital.

      I don’t have the luxury to stop being an employee, even momentarily because I need the income

        • space_iio@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          You seem to not understand the difference between an investment and a loan

          I have applied to a few accelerator programs and haven’t gotten a response

          One thing is to get money in exchange for ownership of the company and the other one is to get money that has to be paid back no matter what

            • space_iio@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 hours ago

              Yes I will take marginal amount of risk but no I won’t gamble everything

              Some people get the opportunity to try things risk free, and others need to risk everything so if they fail the consequences are very negative

            • seadoo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              It’s different kind of risk when failure means you may not eat or become homeless.

              The rich do not incur that kind of risk when they engage in “entrepreneurial-ship”

      • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Which is precisely the argument they give for why capitalists are needed, and thus warrant recompense (at the expense of the worker).

        • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s not a natural outcome. That’s an artificially created made up barrier. That does not justify capitalists. That shows how they have purposefully rigged the system to be reliant on them.