That light wakes people up and increases their energy levels. It's not always pleasant, but work isn't supposed to be. For example, in the US, pushing school start times back from 8 to 9 results in an increase in student performance (it was originally 9 and then moved to 8 to save money on buses).
Your example seems contradictory of your point. Since starting school alter is documented to increase student performance (perhaps because it also increases teacher performance), why would you want to have lower performance?
I also don't see why work shouldn't be pleasant except insofar as it's an unavoidable necessity for it to be otherwise. If you want people to work under less pleasant conditions, then the pay should be raised correspondingly.
You have misinterpreted the example. Students perform better at 9, that is, when the school day corresponds with the solar day. It was moved to 8, as I said, to save money on buses. If it seems insane to you to compromise student achievement in order to save money on buses, please direct your concerns to the Republican Party of the United States, and not to me.
Pay cannot be raised to compensate for the unpleasantness of light coming through your window in the morning. I don't see why you chose to argue about that.
That light wakes people up and increases their energy levels. It's not always pleasant, but work isn't supposed to be. For example, in the US, pushing school start times back from 8 to 9 results in an increase in student performance (it was originally 9 and then moved to 8 to save money on buses).