this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
436 points (99.1% liked)
unions
1289 readers
137 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Union tradesman here, heavy industrial. The most I ever pulled in one week was 102 hours. It was for a time sensitive, round the clock, “once we start this we can’t stop until it’s done” kind of affair. Imagine two 12 hour shifts, but when you’d normally leave, you’d stay as long as you could to help get the night shift guys up and running.
It only lasted the one week, and we all made an obscene amount of money, but any longer than that and I would have had to tell them I had to go back to my usual 60 hours. I had to force myself to stay sharp because there was dangerous shit that needed to be done, I couldn’t imagine 4 weeks of it. No one should be forced into it, even commuting home after work like that is dangerous.
After 84 I felt like was on razors edge trying to keep up. Chores and errands were hard to keep up with and food always had to be quick (I was broke to that ment ordering food wasn't an option).
I luckily had a boss that told me to quit the other job and not to worry I was secure at that one. I would have kept working both careers if he hadn't though :/
Yeah. It’s awful. We should never have to do it. But, I like getting the chance when I can. Nice to pay all the bills in one fell swoop off a single week of work.
I had no other real opportunity to stay out of the rental housing trap. I would have been paying an extra couple hundred a month and putting zero dollars to equity.
Even deployment overseas that's rare, like snipers going to the bathroom while maintaining position is one thing but you can't work someone that long and maintain composer.
I don't think I ever did more than 60 hours a week. But then I live in Europe...
That's a unique case tbh. I don't think that's applicable in case of banking or any other desk jobs. That's just employers trying to squeeze the employees instead of hiring more.
Big agree
I don't think he went home after working that long. He'd probably just collapse to the floor and sleep until it was time to ruin himself for the company's profit.
I get that some jobs require certain attention (like you said, heavy industry. You don't cool down that chimney once it reaches temperature), but in his case? What on earth could justify that?
And even in your case, that's a failure of planning. If one person has to work THAT MANY hours it's obviously not a one person job.
You’re not wrong, but in the commercial/industrial building trades, we welcome it from time to time. I made about $3500usd that week. After taxes. The contractors count on the fact that we want some crazy overtime here and there, it’s the reason most people in my line of work have boats and shit.
In banking? You’re right, there’s no justification. You’re not going to flood an entire suburb or have a steel plant go kaboom if you stop crunching the numbers at the bank.
Yeah, I've been there as well. But the older I get the more I hate companies counting on their staff to pull them out of their failed strategy. It's great if it's a once every few months event, but bosses tend to get too comfy with it, at least it was like that for me. And in my first job they didn't even pay that much.
Yeah. I hear you. But, when you’re already making $40+ an hour, time and half makes it $60+, and Sunday double time makes it $80+.
I’m sure you can see the allure. You can make a lot of problems go away with that kind of money.
And that’s really the key. It should cost them a lot to put us in those scenarios. That’s why you need a good strong union.
100% agree.