this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
925 points (96.4% liked)
People Twitter
8443 readers
2305 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well if you are supposed to be at work at 7 then you should be at work at 7 tbh
The underlying question is "why do you need to be at work a 7 in the first place". If Betty can chat with coworkers half an hour longer than the other person starts working, that half hour can't really be that critical. In that case, 7 is just an arbitrary number and the difference is that Betty starts work at 7:40 while the other commenter gets in trouble for starting at 7:10, which is just plain bullshit.
If I need to start working at 7 for some reason (shift work has been mentioned) and I start at 7:10, we can talk, but Betty's 7:40 ass better get four times the amount of shit.
I mean you have signed a contract requiring you to be at work at 7. So that's when you have to be there, unless you want to be sacked. With an hourly or monthly wage the company is paying for your time and they expect you to put in that time. It'd be different if you had a contract by tender or piecework contract, not sure of the correct English language term. If you have that, you can often set your own hours (to a degree) as long as the job gets done. But that's not what most people have in their employment contract.
Other side of the coin to slacking from the required work time would be if the employer would be slacking from the required pay. And that does happen too and is even worse. But the contract should bind both sides to it so neither happens.
The question is "Why should contracts specify the exact time?"
If you sign a contract with valid stipulations, of course you're required to abide by it, but the subject of the conversation is this specific stipulation.
The claim is that "requiring you to be at work at 7" is an outdated norm.
Because it is much easier to make that sort of contract than measure some objective "work done" metric. Unless you're hoping to be signing piecework/work by tender contracts all the time.
My employer mandates 40h of work per week and a core working time where all employees are supposed to be available. No fixed hours required. I don't see how fixing hours is easier than that.
And ultimately, that is my point: Why set fixed times, if the time itself doesn't actually matter?
It can be that the employer just considers it easiest for them.
That's hardly a good reason to continue doing it. I consider it easiest to just let me work whenever I want to and stop worrying about how much.
If there's no big consequence to starting a few minutes later, Employers shouldn't be so anal about it. It's a waste of everyone's time and will probably cost more time and productivity than those few minutes I wasn't gonna be super productive anyway.
I mean for the employer it's a fine reason. If they didn't get their way with that then they'd probably have to figure out a different system. But right now most workers have set hours
And the whole thread is about workers not wanting it.
It's sorta tough shit as long as you are under such contract. Then again, breaking it is one way to get out of it