This thread was inappropriately censored by either @punkisdead@slrpnk.net or @mambabasa@slrpnk.net claiming:
“Reason: Reason: Literally the opposite of anti-work is “over employment” which OP is arguing for”
There is an English comprehension problem by the mod. Would someone whose first language is English please:
- notice that over employment is actually the problem that the thread identifies and seeks remedies for. Being forced into a full-time or nothing ultamatim is a very common problem that oppresses the anti-work community.
- undo the improper action
The mod’s action to suppress is actually a pro-work action, as it prevents discussion around solutions to over-employment.
Over employment existed long before teleworking multiple IT gigs. What you describe is just one recent trendy and specific form of overemployment. Over employment quite simply means to be on the hook for more work than necessary. It’s usually forced on you, unlike the very recent phenomenon of IT workers doing so deliberately (and often they double-book their time to effectively be overpaid for their their time).
In my particular case, I only needed 20 hours/week of employment but my employer gave a full-time or nothing ultamatim. Because I worked more than I needed, I was over employed. But I was not “overworked” because that’s a higher degree of exploitation which often (but not always) entails underpayment.
I’m not sure what word would properly describe your situation however the definition of the term over-employment both by the actual definition and in the common vernacular is for someone to have two jobs that they work simultaneously for double pay.
Your situation sounds like it sucks because you are basically being forced to waste 20 hours of your time every week. if you did the entire job in 20 hours but you still have to sit there for 40 that’s dumb. However, it doesn’t make sense to me if you were arguing against being forced to do this thing, which you called over-employment and some might call being overworked or forced to waste your time, I’m not sure why that would be censored In an anti-work community. Again I might suggest trying to restate your original argument here so that people can fully understand what you were trying to say and then provide actual feedback. Without the original argument I cannot say for certain what the moderators might have been thinking.
When I say “more work than necessary”, I mean more than necessary for me. I only need 20 hours of employment, generally. The employer needed full-time. There is an infinite stack of work. The work is trivially divisible but the manager can organise the work more conveniently if dividing across fewer workers. When a manager insists on structuring work into only full-time positions in my line of work, they are a lazy manager. (Though I push back and put those lazy managers to work by giving them a part-time or nothing ultamatim, and bounce if needed).
I always start off a new job full-time to accommodate the up-front training in order to reach a point of positive productivity. After becoming established in a position for ~2—3 years many employers allow a transition to part-time. But some do not. In any case, the moment the job imposes more work than the worker needs, the worker is over employed (which can of course be attributed to workers living cheaply as that’s a factor in how much work is needed). I am over-selling my time and over employed the moment a manager refuses my request for part-time.