Most weeks I put in 45-50 hours, usually arriving early to clean up any lingering issues from the day before. This is arguably a lot of time, though it’s nothing compared to what some staffers have to put in to keep the workload from piling up.
One could reasonably ask, though: Cui bono?
I am wondering if maybe we are not just victims of our own success, and our ability to produce. Many people work 40, 50, 60 hours a week not because they need the money, but because they can and because they like the money. I suspect we could probably get along just fine if we were all only working 20 hours a week. Problem then would be finding something to do for all those people who used to be working 60 or 70 hours a week, something besides sitting around and cooking up trouble, which is what the unemployed do now, don’t cha know?
Liking it, sooner or later, mutates into needing it.
The problem, as I see it, is that’s it’s so damned expensive to employ people in the first place, what with payroll taxes, government regulations, and occasionally something resembling benefits. I could see splitting my position into two, but paying two people plus all the associated vig would cost even more than it does to pay me, and I ain’t especially cheap. The front office is reluctant to add any more bodies to the payroll, and I really can’t blame them; that said, we’re in dire need of someone who can spell me in my absence, if I’m ever absent, and at my age, I have to assume there are going to be some absences coming up.