How did you learn about business?

[Darren_Ssc]

Why is the 48 hour guy likely to be more productive?

Because he is likely to have a job that pays a living wage and has some stake in the success of the business.

I guess you're one of those people who think that if it takes one man a hour to do a certain task than 10 men will do it in 6 minutes?

 

[japancool]

Depends on the job. 10 Amazon warehouse workers can do in 1 hour what it takes 1 worker 10 hours to do. Or possibly more, because he'll be knackered by the end.

 

[John Hemming]

With software development the more people the more confusion that goes on. However, with things like carrying bricks from A-B many hands do make light work.

 

[Mr D]

Because he is likely to have a job that pays a living wage and has some stake in the success of the business.

I guess you're one of those people who think that if it takes one man a hour to do a certain task than 10 men will do it in 6 minutes?

Eh?
Wherever did living wage come into the issue?

Some stake in the success of the business? You mean exactly like the 3 people have?


Is one guy at 48 hours a week better for the business than 3 at 16 hours a week each? That is what it comes down to.
You can argue hourly rate later. What, based on the two scenarios mentioned, is better for the business?

 

[Mr D]

Depends on the job. 10 Amazon warehouse workers can do in 1 hour what it takes 1 worker 10 hours to do. Or possibly more, because he'll be knackered by the end.

And multiple workers can be in different places while the single worker has to travel between places.
Sure, easy to move around - but apparently they only walk about 20 miles a day on the job. Each.

 

[Ozzy]

I think different types of businesses will have varying views, but from my perspective (an office based business) I've found it much more productive to have flexible working hours, and even more so for supporting return to work women. Productivity has been noticeably improved, but I can think of some industries that may not work so well (such as construction comes to mind - happy to be corrected though if I'm wrong there)

 

[Deleted member 59730]

and even more so for supporting return to work women.

I ended up only employing women returning to work. Far greater loyalty and commitment.

The value of being based in a village helped enormously.

 

[gpietersz]

With software development the more people the more confusion that goes on.

Brooks' law: "adding manpower to a project makes it later".

The Mythical Man-Month is a bit dated but still very much worth reading.

 

[John Hemming]

I've found it much more productive to have flexible working hours, and even more so for supporting return to work women.

I have always taken the view as an employer that it is best to try to be flexible to give additional benefits for staff beyond being paid for a job (remembering that having a role in society is positive for individuals). This was harder when being part of a leadership team running a City Council (Birmingham), but it remained an issue for me when I had over 200 staff (for quite a few years at various times). Now I only have five staff, but it is relatively easy to tailor the environment to suit people.

 

[Darren_Ssc]

Eh?
Wherever did living wage come into the issue?

Productivity, motivation, that sort of stuff.

Some stake in the success of the business? You mean exactly like the 3 people have?

You think someone dependent on benefits topping up their income gives two stuffs whether your business thrives or fails?

 

[Darren_Ssc]

However, with things like carrying bricks from A-B many hands do make light work.

Yes, this is true, except there isn't an actual job of carrying bricks, it tends to come under general labouring which covers a multitude of other tasks that are not going to be so easilly managed. This applies to many other sceanrios.

Too many cooks...

 

[Mr D]

Productivity, motivation, that sort of stuff.


You think someone dependent on benefits topping up their income gives two stuffs whether your business thrives or fails?

Ok so play around with motivation and pay.
However back to the hours issue - which is better for the business?

Whether someone claims benefits or has 5 jobs should be irrelevant to the employer.
Certainly irrelevant to every job I have had over the years. For whatever reason the employer in each case focused on the job they were recruiting for, the benefit to the employer of having a particular person employed etc.
At the time of recruitment how many employers will know whether the individual will have to claim benefits or not?

 

[John Hemming]

Too many cooks...

Indeed we can agree it is horse for courses.