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
Normalcy doesn't really weigh into it for me. I wouldn't care if you were expected to work 8 or 7 hours a day in a "normal" day. I care about the agreed upon time where i fulfill my end by being on time, the agreed upon time. If you want flex, then you need to be in a job where flex is the agreed upon method.
If we agree on a specified time and you are expected to show up at that time, then it's on you if it is a repeating issue.
If you ever come to sweden, don't be late to agreed times. It will not be looked upon kindly.
My argument is that flex should be the norm. If there is no explicit reason for rigid times, they shouldn't be rigid.
Put differently: Why agree on a fixed time? Why does it matter? If the only answer is "It's normal to agree on fixed times", that's what I meant with "for the sake of normalcy".
If you're running a shop and need people to be there for customers, or you're running some on-call service or whatever, yeah, having people available for agreed-upon time frames is important. But if you're just looking to put ass in chair from 7 to 11 and 11:30 to 15:30, with no regard for whether their work gets done well in that time frame, that's just dumb.
There is no norm. It depends on the country and their social structure aswell as their laws/agreed upon methods. You can always look for jobs/appointments etc that have flexible times. But good luck arguing with, e.g. a doctor about your appointment being flexible.
I think the other poster covered that by specifically talking about appointments. Reread what they said, its pretty damn valid. My job for instance would have very little consequences if I'm ten minutes late. I've told my manager that I may be later dropping off kids and such, they are fine with that. The point is the culture doesn't change if we don't push it to change.
Cool. Then you have that flex agreement with someone. If that works, it works.
In a social context, aka not work, the agreement with me would say that the time is the time. If you don't value my time the same as yours, then we will eventually stop spending time together.
Cool. So if I push that and that becomes the social norm at the workplace, then you should also be cool with that because that's the direction. So if we as a society starting pushing for those things, everyone is hunk dory with that being a normal thing and this whole conversation is fucking moot which what the original replied was saying. but by all means let's shift this all to a discussion on social context all of a sudden.
Nope. I'm not ok with it in a social context.
You are talking about changing about a social structure, then get confused that i talk about the social factor? Get your thoughts in order.
Yeah but swedish people are insane when it comes to be on time. It's like you'll go to hell and burn forever if you're 5 minutes late once i your whole lifetime.
The upfront cost is too high for the benefit IMO (I am swedish, and I'm automatically always on time).
A better way? The french way maybe? Let people arrive 5 minutes late until everyone is present, in the meantime chit chat with coworkers. You get to know people and it's low stress.