Expert Says You're Deluding Yourself If You Think You're Productive On Six Hours of Sleep (chicagotribune.com) 223
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Chicago Tribune: Getting through the workday on little sleep is a point of pride for some. But skimping on shuteye could be shortening your life and making you a less than stellar employee, according to Matthew Walker, founder and director of the Center for Human Sleep Science at the University of California, Berkeley. "Underslept employees tend to create fewer novel solutions to problems, they're less productive in their work and they take on easier challenges at work," said Walker, author of "Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams," out Tuesday. Operating on short sleep -- anything less than seven hours -- impairs a host of brain and bodily functions, said Walker, who is also a professor of neuroscience and psychology. It increases your risk for heart attack, cancer and stroke, compromises your immune system and makes you emotionally irrational, less charismatic and more prone to lying. When asked, "What do you say to people who sacrifice sleep to work?" Walker said: "I often ask the question in return, 'Is the reason you've still got so much to do because you haven't gotten enough sleep and so you're inefficient while you're working?' We know that efficiency and effectiveness are increased when you're getting sufficient sleep and it will take you longer to do the same thing on an under-slept brain, which means you end up having to stay awake longer. So goes the vicious cycle."
In all fairness.... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm no more productive with 8 hours of sleep than I am with 6.
Re: (Score:2)
What about REproductive? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that you, Wally??
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no more productive with 8 hours of sleep than I am with 6.
Just productive enough to not get fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
6 hours? More importantly can you run a country on 3 hours of sleep?
Re: In all fairness.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Those who sacrifice liberty for security or comfort deserve neither.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: In all fairness.... (Score:2)
Your right to swing your fist ends well before my nose begins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the people at FN and every other US-based arms manufacturer. Global sales for decades going strong now...
Side point. FN are Belgian, but your point stands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Herstal
Re:In all fairness.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a lot of wiggle room in that phrase. The first is the 'well regulated' part. At the time the constitution was written, 'regulated' meant more or less the same as 'efficient' (as in, a well-regulated machine is one that runs well). The second is that most militias were fairly informal in times of peace and were, often, more of a deterrent than an actual force. Native tribes would be less inclined to attack if everyone in a town owned a gun, and the fledgeling Federal government would be less inclined to send representatives to try to enforce overbearing laws if they'd run into an armed militia (even in theory).
That said, if you want to reduce gun ownership in the USA, then the easiest (and completely legal) tactic would be to class all gun owners as members of a militia and call them up at random to fight in whatever foreign wars are going on at any given time. I bet gun ownership would drop off pretty quickly if people realised that owning a gun meant that they might actually have to be somewhere that people would shoot at them...
Re:In all fairness.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents, but it says for the security of the state, not the country. The idea being to keep the federal government in check, not the protection of the country as a whole. While I agree that your idea would work, I don't think it fits with the 2nd amendments intended purpose.
What's happening now doesn't fit with it's purpose either but there you go. There are no more injuns to defend from and the federal government just flat out cannot be kept in check by an armed populace unless the intention is for battle with government which just no.
Re: (Score:3)
What's happening now doesn't fit with it's purpose either but there you go. There are no more injuns to defend from and the federal government just flat out cannot be kept in check by an armed populace unless the intention is for battle with government which just no.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” -Jefferson 1787
So yes, battling with the government was indeed one of the things that the original founders deemed not only appropriate but necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
What's happening now doesn't fit with it's purpose either but there you go. There are no more injuns to defend from and the federal government just flat out cannot be kept in check by an armed populace unless the intention is for battle with government which just no.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” -Jefferson 1787
So yes, battling with the government was indeed one of the things that the original founders deemed not only appropriate but necessary.
I always took that to mean battling foreign powers that might want to take your freedom/land (in much the same way America came to be in the first place but anyway) like the nazis etc. Otherwise you can basically just say the door is open for anyone to shoot the government for being tyrants and basically every president you've had would fall under that in one way or another depending who you ask. If it's encoded that the populace is allowed to rise up with deadly force, who decides when that's going to happ
Re: (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents, but it says for the security of the state, not the country.
State is a synonym for country. It's only in the modern USA, where the union has increasingly become viewed as a single entity that this is a distinction - it certainly wasn't at the time that the constitution was written and it still isn't in most of the English-speaking world. I'd have to re-read it, but I don't believe that 'The state' was used to refer to individual member states anywhere else in the constitution, they were always explicitly referred to in plural form.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the framers thought they had to make sure the national fucking guard could exist so they put in the second amendment. I bet that "right to breathe" or the "right to form police at the state and local levels" amendment came really close to making it in too!
Your argument is mentally bankrupt. That phrase is parenthetical and the idea that they put the second amendment in to guarantee that which any idiot would realize is something states can do is risible. Protip: If a store owner puts up a s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what's to say it can't be, you know, amended to be a bit more clear and say that or say it is the right of every American...?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You mean amended to be exactly the same? Who do you think "the people" are, Canadians? Note it doesn't say the right of militias, the right of National Guard members, etc... It's incredibly clear.
It's only through willful misinterpretation and sophistry that people pretend the parenthetical clause is the meat of the sentence when it really doesn't get much more clear than the bolded part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm increasingly tired of people just making shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
I like being more productive (Score:2, Insightful)
I've always known this, and wished bosses were smarter about it. Meaning, when I'm working on a weeks or months-long project, who cares if I come in an hour later, especially if it means I'm far more productive?
Re:I like being more productive (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially with the current traffic. I need to be at work at 8 in the morning. But to arrive at 8, I've to leave at 5:30 which means I've to get up at 4:45-5:00.
If I could start at 10 in the morning, I would only drive 45 minutes and could leave home at 9 and could sleep until 8:15. I wouldn't even need an alarm clock because I wake up around 7:00. This would mean I could even go out for a walk, or do some exercises. I could spent some family time and even bring my children to school.
But nope, 8:00 is set in stone. And all bosses think like this, which is why the traffic is so dense before 8:00 and why people spend more and more time in their car.
Re:I like being more productive (Score:5, Insightful)
I like how the "9-5" job standard is actually "8-5" now.
A few decades ago it really was 9-5. And on that a regular Joe could afford a house, a car or two, a spouse who stayed at home, 2-3 kids, a dog, and retirement.
Re: (Score:3)
Longing for the days when shareholder value was not being extracted from each worker in an efficient way!
You're probably one of those people who kneels during the national anthem too!
Re: (Score:2)
A few decades ago it really was 9-5. And on that a regular Joe could afford a house, a car or two, a spouse who stayed at home, 2-3 kids, a dog, and retirement.
Do you mean before they abandoned the gold standard in 1971 and inflation went through the roof? Wall Street has profited handsomely - government is working as intended.
Don't you and your wife and the haggard teacher at daycare all feel more fulfilled?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you mean before they abandoned the gold standard in 1971 and inflation went through the roof?
That's not the only thing that was happening with the economy at the time. We had a major manufacturing bubble for a couple/few decades after WWII while all of our competitors were busy rebuilding their infrastructure. Eventually, those countries became competition again. So the situation where a married couple with 3 kids landed in a 4 bedroom house with 2 cars while one person worked an entry level manufacturing job didn't just fall apart - It was an anomaly that it was ever realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how the "9-5" job standard is actually "8-5" now.
Wow, that sounds great! There is actually a place where you can work 8-5? For me it's more like this, I remember a time when you didn't have to be on call 24/7 and big chunks of the population were not on anti-depressants and high blood pressure medication. But, don't worry folks, everything is FINE! If you whine, you're just a slacker!
Re: I like being more productive (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s called being salaried. I come in when I want and leave when I want, as long as the work gets done nobody cares.
I do get my 8 hours of sleep and an approximate 40h of work in per week.
Re: (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s called being salaried. I come in when I want and leave when I want, as long as the work gets done nobody cares.
Right now, I'm employed as an hourly "Programmer" and put in exactly 80 hours every 2 weeks. I set my own hours at about 6:30-3:00. When I was salaried, that was not the case. I was expected to be at work from 9:00-3:00 with a 30-60 minute lunch between 11 & 1. Outside that I could work when I wanted. It was explained to me that 40 hours was the minimum number I should charge to my projects during the week. It was expected that I'd charge more. Getting all my work done was secondary. Charging hours to t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's 8am to 5pm, or 9am to 6pm. And they still call it an "8 hour work day", because they don't count your lunch hour. But then they get angry at you if you actually take a full hour for lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
A few decades ago it really was 9-5.
For whom? I've been a full-time employee for nearly five decades, and it's always been 8-5. Except for when it's been 7-4, that is. 9-5 is eight hours; I've never known anyone who worked at a place that pays for employees' lunch hour.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been working "regular" jobs since 1978. None of the jobs I have worked were "9-5"; all required 8 hours of actual work; some had a nominal 30 minute lunch break, others 1 hour, planned into the schedule. Much of my "career" was in one company that gave all of its workers flexibility in start/stop times (and even in the number of hours worked per day), but we had to have 80 hours of actual work in every two weeks.
I was able to afford a house in my first full time job after graduating college with a B
Re: (Score:2)
I like how the "9-5" job standard is actually "8-5" now.
A few decades ago it really was 9-5. And on that a regular Joe could afford a house, a car or two, a spouse who stayed at home, 2-3 kids, a dog, and retirement.
8-5? more like 7-5 here.
Mine's 8.30-5 but on fridays it's 9-4 so thats nice.
Re: (Score:2)
8-6 here
Re: (Score:3)
Landlines per se weren't all that expensive. At least not in North America. Mostly about the same as today in current dollars. But non-local calls -- any call to places beyond walking distance -- were expensive. Long distance costs were outrageous. International calls were well beyond outrageous.
Re: (Score:2)
Long distance costs were outrageous. International calls were well beyond outrageous.
Last month, I had to call a Canadian hotel on my cell (T-Mobile). It cost $1/minute!
I gotta have a chat with them, they might not know it's 2017.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Long commutes suck (in my opinion). The best way to avoid them is to live close to where you work, which probably involves a trade-off of jobs and income. Once you have a family, moving to be close to work becomes more problematic. Living in/near urban environments brings more job opportunities, at the cost of longer commutes; living away from the coastal areas in the US often can provide a better work/life balance, but perhaps at lower income levels. All of this means that choosing where to live and wo
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess I see what point you are trying to make, I just don't think you are half as clever as you believe you are. Especially if you are comparing your programming job (I have never worked a an IT job that didn't have flexible hours) with say, a service industry job in the US.
But for the counterpart, as a software dev in the States.
I mostly work from home, and while the official target is 80 hours a pay period no one really cares (or checks) as long as you participate in the vtc/web conferences and get your
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't think you are half as clever as you believe you are
I am also forced to use metric and can't take a gun to work.
That statement alone confirms he is clever.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I see what point you are trying to make, I just don't think you are half as clever as you believe you are. Especially if you are comparing your programming job (I have never worked a an IT job that didn't have flexible hours) with say, a service industry job in the US.
But for the counterpart, as a software dev in the States.
You're also an anomaly. I know far many more people in IT who are working 60 hour weeks and drive an hour each way into the office, get 15 days paid vacation that doesn't roll over to the next year, and any sick time comes out of their 15 days of paid vacation.
Re: (Score:2)
Even without the traffic, it can still be about the commute.
I have a reasonable 9-5:30 working day, with an hour for lunch, so 37.5 hour working week, which most of the time is what it actually is.
However, I need a 5:45 alarm to be up at 6. I'm a slow mover in the morning, so that lets me shower, make and eat breakfast, feed the pets, prepare lunch, make my wife breakfast, get dressed, any other bits and pieces that need doing to be out the door around 7:30. I drive to the station to make a train around 8
Re: (Score:2)
I did that once - had a 90 minute commute (not as bad as yours, admittedly). That was by car. By bus, it took some insane amount of time.
Perhaps your values are different, but I looked at what I was doing and decide I didn't want to live like this. I already had the advantage of living near the urban core, so I limited my next job search to th
Re: (Score:2)
So why do you work there?
I'm pretty serious - I've got about 0 loyalty to an employer, because almost none of them have any loyalty to me. If the working conditions are good I'll happily work, but once it gets shitty I'm out. I'm a bit underpaid right now, but I'm here because everything else is pretty darn good. I'd like more pay but I don't need more pay - I'm getting enough that I'm doing quite well as it is. And I'm not willing to trade more money for the shitty work life you're describing.
If more peopl
Sleep Science wants more money (Score:2)
Wow, that's clueless with the power of an Ox (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the extra work they do might not be the best but good enough is always good enough. People are losing sleep because they're being taken advantage of and made to work longer hours. As an added benefit if you're doing the work of 1.5 employees that's less people your company has to hire, meaning more competition for your job, driving your wages down further and leading to you working harder. See where this thing's going?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It actually started in the 1970s [aboutinflation.com] with the Arab Oil Embargo. But people wanting to blame it all on Reagan like to pretend it started in the 1980s.
That's why Reagan is generally considered a pretty good President (among those who lived through the 1970s and 1980s). Yes growth was stagnant. But compared to what was happening before under Ford and Carter, it was a marked improvement. It's a little amus
Reagan was a terrible president (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reagan was a terrible president (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget Reagan's war on the family farm. Mission Accomplished!
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED2809... [ed.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Reagan's war on the family farm. Mission Accomplished!
Reagan can't take credit for that, it started way before him. It was called: The Industrial Revolution. Read history. When mass production came into play, they had to convince farmers to move out of rural communities to come work at factories in the city.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure he can. Read history. It's true enough technology contributed to a world-wide decline of family farms, however the impact in US was much higher during Reagan's terms due to his approach to farmers. You'll also notice the smaller family farms were effected much more harshly than corporate ones.
> When mass production came into play, they had to convince farmers to move out of rural communities to come work at factories in the city.
No, this is not what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a momentary blip in oil production shouldn't have caused 50 years of declining wages. Trickle down economics did.
I'm not disagreeing that trickle down economics doesn't work well, but the opposite doesn't work either. If you raise taxes on corporations, they just hire less people, pay lower wages and cut down benefits. What is the solution?
Warren Buffet disagrees (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Corporate income taxes are not paid on labor costs. If the company officers think it will be more profitable by abusing workers, it doesn't matter what the corporate tax rate is, they'll abuse workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't. None of this resonates with my experience. I've been doing great and I started working AFTER the wages stagnated. /shrug
Not knowing anything different isn't living better.
Experts say (Score:5, Insightful)
Experts actually say that if you think everybody requires the same number of hours of sleep, you're deluding yourself.
Not me (Score:4, Funny)
Getting through the workday on little sleep
Now please turn off my office lights and close the door behind you.
Re: (Score:2)
The consequences would be worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Conversely to you the thing that dictates how long I sleep is the time I go to bed, not the time I get up.
If I'm having a great evening for whatever reason, getting 8 hours' sleep is way down on my priority list, or rather completely absent from it.
Re: (Score:3)
Not getting 8 hours sleep a night has nothing to do with work. (...) because I get up at 4:00am, do physical training for a competitive sport, then go to work by 8:30am.
If you work out for like four hours every day I hope there's an Olympic gold medal in your future. Because that's just not normal levels of training even for competitive sports, that's trying to become the world's best. And I know there's some track-and-field events and various other obscure sports where sponsors are hard to come by and people do that as a side gig on top of a day job, but no wonder it takes some sacrifices.
Well, it will work out (Score:2)
What is 6 hours is your maximum (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
People are different. They have different needs for sleep. If I sleep for more than 6, I feel like utter shit. Headaches and lethargy all day. I work best on about 6, and am function on down to 4. Above that I'm less productive.
Re: (Score:2)
People are different. They have different needs for sleep. If I sleep for more than 6, I feel like utter shit. Headaches and lethargy all day. I work best on about 6, and am function on down to 4. Above that I'm less productive.
Exactly. My number is 5 hours, and I also get the headache issue if I've had too much. And with less than 5, I really notice a falloff in prerformance.
Re: (Score:3)
People are different. They have different needs for sleep. If I sleep for more than 6, I feel like utter shit. Headaches and lethargy all day.
That's evidence of sleep deprivation. If you got proper sleep for a few days, you would feel like a new person.
Re: (Score:3)
You might say that, but do you have scientific evidence ? You'll have to :
1. Compensate for the placebo effect - what if you have the headaches and lethargy because you think sleeping more than 6 hours is bad for you? One way for doing this is to make you think you slept 6 hours but you actually sleep 8 hours. If sleeping 8 hours is not physiologically possible for you, first that would need to be fixed. If it can't be fixed, the conclusion is that it is unknown how well an 8 hour sleep schedule works for y
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever had a sleep study done? You could have apnea, and you'd feel a lot better if you fixed that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what I describe is normal genetic diversity. I wouldn't be any more effective if I could sleep 8 hours- I just don't need or want them. Just like people have different metabolic rates, different core temperatures, etc people have different needs for sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
What you've described is a sleep disorder.
No, what I describe is normal genetic diversity.
It actually could be either one [bbc.com].
Since discovering the DEC2 mutation, a lot of people have come forward claiming to only sleep a few hours a day, says Fu. Most of these had insomnia, she says.
It's True! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You need so many hours to reset/repair your brain. And your body needs repair in the additional sleep. If you short yourself you might get away with the brain for a while, but they are both tied together so your thinking will eventually get cloudy. Not to mention the eventual breakdown of the body and/or brain.. Or you can deny all of this and wait till you get older.
What you say is true, but it really depends on the individual, despite what this guy says. I've alawys done 5 hours, and unless I have a cold, I'm awake without an alarm, and feel good with 5. I go to sleep when I'm tired, and wake up when I've had enough sleep. I'm old enough, and except for nagging old sports injuries that come back to haunt me as arthritis pain, Im doing just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one thing I learned.. Lack of sleep contributes to arthritis. Two separate occasions with two different doctors though the years said the same thing. Plus I also read it on the Web. And yes, regarding injuries: an old man told me once when I was young, the injuries that you incur when you are young, will haunt you later. My grandfather warned me when I mowed the lawn. (I whipped around the lawnmower like it was a rag doll in my 20's. To get the job done fast) to take it easy on my body. I didn't listen. And I wish I did now. I used to think I was indestructible. Too late now.
I have a long litany of Ice Hockey injuries, and the generalized wear and tear that that involves, especially since I played long past the age when most people have stopped. Sleep or no sleep, I was a prime candidate. I still get a lot of exercise, since that's a drug-free way to keep mobile and oddly, avoid some of the pain. But I wouldn't change any of that. But oh yeah, The old injuries do come back to haunt us.
Work is not why I'm not sleeping enough (Score:2)
So what do I do? (Score:5, Interesting)
I go to bed, fall asleep, and then 5 hours later I wake up feeling refreshed and rested. So should I drug myself in order to get the "correct" and healthy amount of sleep? Or do I go to a doctor and tell him that some expert told me I was killing myself. so I need treated for insomnia. I really don't want to just lie in bed for three extra hours.
I call Bullshit. I know what I feel like when I'm tired, I know what I feel like when I have had enough sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you should do is read the fine article, which actually answers your question.
I believe I answered the article's litmus test. I don't use an alarm to wake up, with the rare exceptions of when a travel schedule requires a very short night of sleep. That's maybe 2 times a year.
Caffeine use stops at noon, and I even tried one of those programs that adjusts your monitor intensity and color since the wife heard how bad using monitors at night was. Alcohol use is minimal at an estimated six-pack equivalent per year. None of that makes a difference. No difference in sleep pattern
And
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, so what are you complaining about?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, so what are you complaining about?
I'm noting that anyone who demands that people who don't sleep the amount of time that they say is the right amount of time, is of very suspect knowledge of physiology.
I'm saying - and make no mistake, this is a stament, a part of a civil conversation - that that is simply wrong, and incorrect, and that there might be other forces at play that involve pecuniary accumulation on the part of the group making the statement.
Do you have some sort of issue with people having conversations? Chillaxe and consid
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are phenomenally lucky. I’m currently (temporarily) getting around six hours of sleep on weekdays and it’s nowhere near enough.
It can be handy when the workload is high.
Re: (Score:2)
And you've never known anything else.
True - just like breathing or taking a crap.
To me it is amazing that there are people out there who insist that a group with as much physical variety as humans shares this one trait - that 100 percent of humanity needs exactly 8 hours of sleep a night - and that there are no exceptions to that rule.
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct, but it still doesn't mean that your original calling of bullshit is scientifically valid. Maybe optimal for you is 0.289334385 hours, maybe optimal for you is 12.86498963 hours. Maybe 9.84689923 is better than 6.008768934 hours for playing football, but 4.873846390 hours per day is better for learning the Arabic language.
I put some ways of making these observations scientific here : https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org], it all applies to you too. Or it could at least help you realize why your
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct, but it still doesn't mean that your original calling of bullshit is scientifically valid.
It wasn't a science experiment. It was calling bullshit on the statement "Productive on six hours of sleep? You’re deluding yourself, expert says." which is the headline of the article.I don't need that much. 5 is fine for me. I go to sleep, then wake up 5 hours later and it suits me just fine. That isn't science, just experience
>, it all applies to you too. Or it could at least help you realize why your observations aren't rigorously scientific.
If they are not too scientific, you could have those opinions still. But they are useless for others because they would need to borrow your body, mind and thoughts to have similar sleep requirements.
Where did you ever come up with the idea that I was making a scientific claim, and that I was somehow extrapolating it to everyone else? My particular sleep requirements are
Simulation of productivity vs. actual productivity (Score:2)
Those that simulate it will stay long hours, but actually have less output and worse quality than more sane workers. But unfortunately, many "managers" are pretty low on productivity and insight anyways, so simulating productivity may be better for your career as those evaluating you do not understand that they are using an unsuitable metric. What we see here is the ages-old problem of faulty optimization strategies because of wrong selection of metric. The result is that people optimize with respect to the
If I sleep more than 7 hours for a couple of night (Score:2)
I get exactly 8 hours every night (Score:3)
That is what I track on my health incentive plan at work, so it is true.
I also am never stressed, work 40 hours a week, am always happy, eat the perfect diet according to what they think is perfect (which it isn't), and exercise exactly how much they think I should exercise.
Stuff grows to fill the space (Score:2)
I often ask the question in return, 'Is the reason you've still got so much to do because you haven't gotten enough sleep and so you're inefficient while you're working?'
I've got "so much to do" because stuff grows to fill the space it's got. If you're the kind of person who likes to be hectic and busy all the time, you'll do it whether you're awake 16 hours a day or 20.
Same goes for bosses. We all talk about "getting the work done" but most of them only care about how busy you are - or how busy you look. Very few of them know what's a reasonable amount of work to expect, so they focus on hours and effort.
The U.S. Navy might have something to say (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we know that ACs make the best posts on Slashdot.
What do we know about creimer?
Re: (Score:2)
What do we know about creimer?
That a lot of people seem to have a rather unhealthy obsession with the guy?
Re: (Score:2)
He invented a beautiful knot though!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Every time I read something like this, I just can't help but think that Americans are primarily wage slaves. This can't happen in Europe. You can refuse, and they cannot fire you without several formal warnings (and a warning can't be "refuses to work 60 hours a week").
They simply cannot make you work 60 hours a week, and they have to *ask* you nicely if you want to work overtime (with extra pay) on the weekend or evenings.
They also cannot spy on you, expect replies to mail/SMS/whatsapp outside office hou