Dave Balzer blogs about hiring productive employees, based on Eric Wise blogging about compensation. Eric asks the question: “How many of you would take a paycut for a shorter work-week?”
Hmmmmmm. Damn good question, Eric. In my current position, I am classified as “exempt”; this means, generically, that I do not get paid overtime and I am expected to work “whatever it takes to get the job done”. So, with that context established, how would I answer Eric’s question? Well, I have more questions (surprising, eh?). Eric also states:
Those of us who have experience, confidence, and ability seem to agree with the following statement: "I would take a paycut to work less hours"
How does this question get applied to someone like me[1]? Does “shorter work-week” mean a guaranteed forty (40) hour week? Fifty(50)? Does it guarantee me to be home on Thursday night (regardless of hours worked M-H)?
Ideally, I work what is called 5–4–3. This translates to working 5 days a week, 4 days and 3 nights away from home. The 5th day is spent in my local or home office doing internal stuff, training, etc. Also ideally, those four days and three nights (outside of travel time) contain 40 billable hours (within that, I try to do something like 8,12,12,8). Reality has presented me (and I only speak for me) with a slightly different interpretation. Up through February [2005] I had been “on the road” for twenty-two (22) months straight.
The majority of the the twenty-two months I was able to do 5–4–3 of varying hours. The last seven of the twenty-two I was on-site five days per week (i.e. five days/four nights) for the majority of the time (say, four or five weeks of that I did 5–4–3; also, throw in two ad-hoc weekends (so I was gone twelve days at a time)). Also in that last seven months, 85% of that time were weeks that required overtime (some times a little, some times a lot)[2]. So take this scenario and re-vist Eric’s question. How the hell do you apply that? Rather, in what way?
So, do I tell my Practice Director [3] that I will take a pay cut for a 5–4–3 week of only forty hours? Or that I will take a pay cut if I no longer travel (but no guarantee on forty hours)? Maybe. Frankly, I think that if you are in a consulting role such as mine and a question such as Eric’s comes to mind, you may need to reconsider if you want to stay in that role, not to mention that most customers would not find that acceptable. Heck, many don’t find 5–4–3 acceptable; they want you in a seat, on-site, five days a week.
I do not think that such a role with a shortened-hour work-week can be executed effectively. I do, however, think it can be executed effectively in a shortened-day work-week. Would I like a guaranteed 5–4–3? Certainly. Would like a guaranteed 5–4–3/40? Oh, yeah! Do I think that 5–4–3/40 can be a reality? Yes. Always? No, not in some of the situations I have been in. Am I condoning insane amounts of overtime? Oh, hell no! I usually find myself making more mistakes in an 80–hour week than in a 40–hour week, not to mention physical effects. I think working extended hours, consistently, is detrimental to productivity and developer health A rested developer is a productive developer.
Do I have experience, confidence, and ability? You betcha! Would I take a paycut to work less hours? Hmm. Two answers here. Less than 40? I’d love to, but that is not feasible at this point in my life[4], no to mention that I don’t think it’s feasible for a role such as mine. To work only 40? Possibly. Am I paid my salary with the expectation that I’ll work more than 40 hours [as an ‘exempt’ employee], or am I paid my salary under the guise of 40 hours and bonus points for the company if they get more hours of me per week?
Would I love to develop myself in other directions? Yep. Would I love to spend more time with my wife? Certainly[5]. Am I complaining about my work hours/travel situation? Nope. Being employed where I am is my choice; my wife in school is our choice – choices we consciously made and accepted. Do I have issues with my employer? Sure, but I find my employer situation to be an acceptable trade-off (while that may sound, erm, like I don’t enjoy my work, or harsh to my employer, it is not – *everything* we do in life is a trade-off).
In sum, I think that Eric has a valid point when he says “there is a magic time and place when your experience level and salary reaches a point that suddenly the money doesn't mean as much”. Family comes first – or so we are told, and so we want to believe. The unfortunate reality is that we often put family second in order to secure our means to provide for the family. I hope that I can get to that “magic time and place” and still provide adequate support for my family. Even more important, I hope I still have a family to support.
-Nino
[1]”Someone like me” == someone who travels [to the customer] and is away from home three or four (or more) nights per week (every week) and works at least forty hours during that time (often significantly more).
[2] I am stating facts here; not giving an opinion on the situation – please don’t read between the lines (as there is nothing to read), or think I’m asking for a sympathy vote
[3] his blog seems to be down right now…
[4]Why not? I am the sole provider, and I have bills to pay – simple enough. My wife is in [gradulate] school full time and we have made the decision for her to concentrate on school (not to mention that at times she needs to spend time ‘in the field’ on occaision, which isn’t conducive to continued employment <g>). Some day, God and medical science willing, we will have children – and yes, I will want to spend all the time with them that I can.
[5] My current situation changes things considerably.. stay tuned for a post on this.