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.
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.