• masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    E.g. pay the 8hr-day person 20% more than the 6hr-day one.

    The problem with that is you’re going to have a hard time actually telling whether the 8hr-day people is actually really doing more than the 6hr-day people.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You just don’t do that. You assume everyone is doing avg productivity for their job. Otherwise you enter the fools errand of performance measurements and evaluation. Assume avg productivity, pay the person who wants to spend 5 days a week proportionally more than the person spending 4 days a week. Or 8hrs vs 6hrs, and so on. Only if you want to allow for some poeple to work more than others. Maybe you don’t. Maybe we shouldn’t.

      • masquenox@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        You assume everyone is doing avg productivity for their job.

        On average, people only manage about 4hrs of productivity on any given day - no matter whether you are paying them for 6hrs or 8hrs.

        You’re essentially creating conditions for people who just sit around and pretend to work - while the people who cannot spend 8hrs per day at the workplace (like working mothers, for instance) start getting miffed because they can’t access the extra “sitting-around-and-doing-nothing” money.

        Otherwise you enter the fools errand of performance measurements and evaluation

        You’re going to have to measure and evaluate something. In my experience, corporations loves measuring all the wrong things. They can usually barely even define what “performance” means, never mind measure it correctly.

        It’s not evaluation that’s the problem… it’s the people deciding what should be evaluated that’s almost always the problem.