Obviously the point from the company's perspective is that they are leaving 20% productivity on the table because people slack off instead of doing actual work.
There must be a balance. You can't just say, as you do, that employees might as well go home since they aren't working.
> You can't just say, as you do, that employees might as well go home since they aren't working.
Why not?
As long as you are satisfied with the productivity of that employee, what does it really matter if they produce their output in 10 hours or 40?
I get that the idea is that "if they can do this in 10 hours, then in 40 hours they should produce 4x as much!" But that's clearly not reality. All that happens is that once a worker's capacity is tapped out, they find workplace-acceptable ways to sandbag
Employers can seethe about it all they want but that's the reality
> As long as you are satisfied with the productivity of that employee, what does it really matter if they produce their output in 10 hours or 40?
I have different expectations depending on whether you worked 10 or 40 hours. The _reality_ is that you and your employer need to come to an agreement on expectations.
Yes, that's exactly the wrong perspective to take. The right one is that you shouldn't try to squeeze the last bits from a lemon. The only get is bitterness.
There must be a balance. You can't just say, as you do, that employees might as well go home since they aren't working.