Any company that runs down worker resources by running them out of spec is not sustainable and indicative of a lack of mature management. You wouldn't run your physical machinery outside of its operating area, so don't do it to your workforce. Automate. Fabs are the knife edge of technology, literally building the components that go into all other forms of automation, yet they are reliant on primate and medieval era organizational structures and processes?

Yes...with a lot of asterixes.

Ask anyone who worked in retail for a long time. When they replaced the point of sale and catalog search systems in the early 2000's, everyone's productivity plummeted.

They replaced old, DOS/Norton-style keyboard-only systems with a legion of shortcuts and archaic codes with Web-based touch-screen or mouse-based UIs with modern UX etc.

The new technology was obviously more modern and allowed faster training, and it's hard to imagine any world where that upgrade doesn't happen. But the old system was faster, and allowed experienced users to do more.

Now, if you're talking about a Blockbuster Video, maybe it's the right choice.

But if you're talking about extremely specialized semiconductor manufacturing, maybe you stick with the highly optimized system that works. Some things changed a lot since 1987. Others haven't.

I appreciate the sentiment, but we are talking about different things. My comment was directed entirely at how hard some companies push their workforce, not what era the technology is from.

Understood, my mistake.

My impression was that the extra hours are due to the factories being on a 24/7 uninterrupted production cycle. Having people work 12 hour shifts instead of 8 reduces the headcount required by 33%.

I don't think shift duration changes the headcount, it really depends on the total hours per week each person is working.

There's 168 hours in a week. If people work for 40 hours a week, to cover the 168 hours you need to employ 4.2 people for every employee you want on the floor at any given time. That means everyone works 5 8-hour shifts, or 3.3 12-hour shifts per week.

If you reduce headcount by 33%, that works out to 2.8 people per employee on the floor, which means everyone works 60 hours per week -- 7.5 8-hour shifts, or 5 12-hour shifts. That's a lot.

Only if you can get away with not paying people at least 33% more.

Not true, you can pay 33% or more and still save money on overhead, head count, and shift changes. You see this in the US despite overtime laws, where it is still better to pay a worker 150% for the extra hours.

> While workers in Taiwan used to work 12 hour days, time worked is not a good indicator of productivity and I'm willing to bet that TSMC's massive profitability meant there wasn't much incentive to make the work process more efficient.

That's one of the pitfall of low labor costs: since time is virtually free it tends to create a culture that doesn't use it efficiently.

I've seen it with offshored devs way too often; why take the time to learn version control when you can pass around code in emails and on thumb drives?