40-hour weeks (was Re: FWD: Lack...)

[Stuart Burnfield]

I take Dan's point--the choice of a right number of hours is arbitrary 
and depends on the person, occupation, location, and in particular the 
era. In Dickens don't the clerks all work full days from Monday to Saturday?

I do think there's a point of diminishing returns. Your sixtieth hour in 
a given week won't be as productive as any of the first forty hours. In 
fact if you work sixty-hour weeks for any length of time none of those 
hours will be as productive as a normal hour in a forty hour week.

So while I wouldn't try to make a general distinction between 40-hour 
clock watchers and 45-hour inefficient workers, I do think long hours 
*for long periods* is a sign of poor management. If the TW isn't getting 
paid OT they're getting a raw deal. If they are getting paid OT then the 
employer isn't getting value for money.

It would be like paying 50% extra for your eleventh beer. You don't need 
it! You can't taste it!

Stuart


"Dan Goldstein" said:
 > Right, and then the next guy replies, "I think that anyone who
 > can do their work in 35 can probably do it in 30." The choice
 > of 35 as "reasonable" is as random as the choice of 40 or 45.
 >
 > Does anyone have any research that suggests that tech writers
 > can accomplish as much work in 35 hours as in 40, or as much
 > in 40 hours as in 45?