Re:The term ‘quiet quitting’ is worse than nonsense
by everforward on Sunday September 18, 2022 @02:48PM
(#32890269)
I'd be curious about the math. It's really weighing the period of training and how often that training period is inflicted (turnover) against the productivity gains of overworking people.
E.g. if a business can force everyone to work through their half-hour lunch without pay, they're getting an extra 130 hours per employee per year for free. If it takes them a week (40 hours) to train a new employee, they can have 300% turnover for that role (replacing the worker in that role 3 times) and still net 10 free hours per year.
At 2 weeks of training, they net 50 free hours at 100% turnover and break even at 150% turnover.
At 3 week of training, they net 10 hours on 100% turnover, and would be better off letting people have lunch if turnover is higher than 100%.
Skipping lunch is a weird way to measure it, but it's hard to generalize "how much more productivity do companies get if they micromanage employees like Amazon does" or something like that.
E.g. if a business can force everyone to work through their half-hour lunch without pay, they're getting an extra 130 hours per employee per year for free. If it takes them a week (40 hours) to train a new employee, they can have 300% turnover for that role (replacing the worker in that role 3 times) and still net 10 free hours per year.
At 2 weeks of training, they net 50 free hours at 100% turnover and break even at 150% turnover.
At 3 week of training, they net 10 hours on 100% turnover, and would be better off letting people have lunch if turnover is higher than 100%.
Skipping lunch is a weird way to measure it, but it's hard to generalize "how much more productivity do companies get if they micromanage employees like Amazon does" or something like that.