• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Against the synchronous society

Status
Not open for further replies.

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,600
I stumbled across this interesting article which questions the current way we do things, specifically the way we all have to be at work at the same time, which put peak demands on transport, and asks if there is a better way that involves spreading out demand and is better for employees. The way we do things with fixed office hours is a throwback to the industrial revoluition and the assembly line, where every bit of the assembly line has to be at work at the same time, otherwise it can't function.



It's alarming how often society seems to hinge on people being in the same place at the same time, doing the same things. The drawbacks of this are immense: infrastructure has to be overprovisioned for any bursty load pattern and being inside of a bursty load pattern results in higher waiting times and isn't a pleasant experience for everyone involved. Hence it's important to investigate why this happens and whether this is always required.

Have you heard of TV pickups? Whenever a popular TV programme goes on a commercial break or ends, millions of people across the UK do the same things at the same time: they turn kettles on, open refrigerator doors, flush their toilets and so on. This causes a noticeable surge in utilization of, say, electric grids and the sewage system. As a result, service providers have to provision for it by trying to predict demand. This isn't just an academic exercise: in the case of electric energy, generators can't be brought online instantly and energy can't be stored cheaply.

In the case of the Underground network, there are times on some lines where trains arrive more frequently than every two minutes (pretty much as often as they can, given that the trains have to maintain a safe distance between each other and spend some time on the platform) and yet they still are packed between 8am and 9am. Any incident, however small, like someone holding up the doors, can result in a knock-on effect, delaying the whole line massively.

Why are people doing this to themselves?


The weekend was a great invention (although Henry Ford's reason for giving his employees more time off was that they'd have nothing to do and hence start buying his own, and other businesses', goods). But does the weekend really have to happen at the same time for all people?

Some of the phenomena governing people's schedules are natural. It does get dark at night and people do need light. It gets cold in the winter and people need heating. But the Earth does not care whether it's the weekday or the weekend, a Wednesday or a Saturday. And yet somehow the society has decreed that Wednesday is a serious business day and any adult roaming the streets during daytime on that day might get weird stares.

Expanding on this, do working hours have to happen at the same time either? People naturally need rest, but what they don't naturally need is to be told when exactly they can work and rest. And in some types of work, like knowledge work, being told when to work is not necessary and even can be harmful.

In professional services, in most cases, the client doesn't care when the service is being performed. The client wants a tax return to be prepared: they don't want the tax return to only be prepared between 9 and 5. The client wants their investments to be managed: the investments don't need to only be managed between 9 and 5. And so on. Fixed work hours make no sense since it's not time the client is buying, it's the result. Knowledge work isn't predicated on people having to do it at the same time or even at a given time.

The fact that everybody has to work fixed hours hails from the Industrial age assembly line thinking (in fact, the term "line manager" is still used in the UK to refer to one's boss). If one part of the assembly line is missing, the assembly line doesn't work. Hence the management has to make sure that all parts of the assembly line have finished their sandwiches and are in place for when their shift starts. The whole shift also has to get their days off synchronously, as it can't function at all after a critical mass of people has taken the day off.

This is in no way an argument for longer working hours. If a person has exhausted their working capacity for the day, what's the point of holding them in the office until a given hour unless they're in a role that requires that? Some people work better when they have a set goal and some time to achieve it, to be used at their discretion. Some people work in bursts, where the output of one day can overshadow the rest of the week. Mandating fixed hours for knowledge workers means they aren't as efficient as they can be for their employer and further suffer from the utilization peaks that they themselves cause.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

RichT54

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2018
Messages
420
The place where I worked before I retired had a reasonably flexible attitude to the times that people worked, as long as you did the required number of hours, had a sufficient overlap with the people you needed to work with and were available for any necessary meetings. I much preferred to arrive early and leave early which meant I could avoid the morning and evening rush hours and also be certain of getting a parking space in the somewhat limited company car park. Others preferred to arrive and leave later, while many continued to do the standard hours. I know it was not an extreme example, but the flexibility did make a valuable difference for me.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,327
Location
Yorks
There's a magical solution to all of this - flexitime.

Employers don't like it though because they lose a load of free work !
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
This always fascinates me; from doing a regular commute where you see the same people / cars etc. in the street at the same time, doing the same thing, every day; the extent to which society is a 'slave' to the arbitrary nature of the 24-hour clock!



The weekend was a great invention (although Henry Ford's reason for giving his employees more time off was that they'd have nothing to do and hence start buying his own, and other businesses', goods). But does the weekend really have to happen at the same time for all people?

It does make it hard to plan social arrangements, for example. I know shift workers have problems doing "normal" social activities, because they are (unsurprisingly) planned for when most people can make them.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,932
Location
Gateway to the South West
"Expanding on this, do working hours have to happen at the same time either?" In many cases, yes if a) that is the time customers work and/or b) if your work depends on what others in the team are doing at the same time (extreme example, no good having a surgeon and anaesthetist working at different times!). Not necessarily an issue in all jobs, obviously.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
4,744
Obviously it depends on the type of work and the need (or not) to interact will co-workers.

I once worked in a factory where everyone clocked on at the same time (same for meal breaks and finish time). It meant I stood twiddling my thumbs for 30 minutes every morning whilst stuff worked its way from the start of the production line to me at the packing end. At meal breaks and at the end of the day, those at the start of the line had to stop 30 minutes early so that I was able to finish on time. Sometimes there were tasks to fill up the time such as cleaning/tidying the workspace or chasing the warehouse for boxes etc, but a pretty inefficient way of working when some people could simply have started / finished 30 minutes apart.

Working in an office, flexi-time (within limits) always seemed a sensible approach as it avoided the 'factory hooter' rush for the lifts, or car park exit. Spreading the load wherever practicable seems sensible. Similarly I see no reason why major employers (on the same business park say) cannot agree staggered start/finish times to avoid the five-o-clock overload on the one junction to the highway network etc.

In an office I worked at we moved from flexitime (arrive between 0730 to 0930) to super-flexi-time where you could start and finish whenever, so long as the work got done. In theory you had to fill in a time-sheet to show the number of hours worked but in some parts of the organisation people didn't bother. The problem occured when you needed to speak to a colleague who worked 'opposite' hours. For example, I started out of choice at 0700 (always an early riser and to avoid traffic), whilst they may not arrive until 1030 or later (children to school then breakfast). It can make it difficult to get things done. You had to know people's habits, or rely on them inserting accurate information into 'Office Calendar (or whatever it was) in order to schedule tasks and get the job finished. I never agreed with the 'always on' work ethic where people are expected to answer their phone, emails or nowadays zoom calls at any hour.

One thing that was nearly always the case was that people were definitely creatures of habit. The ones pushing the flexi-time boundaries at 0931 did it every day, not just occaisionally. The clock-watchers at 1600, itching to leave ASAP did it every day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top