I see this as an indictment of the common business management tactic world-wide to externalize the costs of rising expectations placed upon employees, without compensation, under the "do more with less" rubric. When even the children can see what is plainly in front of them, and express in honest language that their parents are bringing home work responsibilities and concerns, then the economic platform should be re-examined.
I find one of the most effective ways to do more with less is to ignore work after work, enjoy my life and show up the next day well rested and not stressed.
If it's important you'll get a call. When I do work at a place that prides itself on people being available around the clock, i'll delay send / reply to something right before bed and then plugging in my phone in another room.
Gives the appearance of working the most hours, interrupts other people / ruins their sleep, doesn't really affect my life in any material way.
Hah. Are you aware that there used to be a phrase everyone knew referred to as a 'speed-up'? It was the opposite side of the coin of a work slowdown. Everyone knows what a slowdown is. It's when workers try to get higher wages or apply pressure on their employer by intentionally working more slowly. And it used to be equally universally known that the opposite side of the coin was equally immoral and disgusting - for an employer to expect a worker to produce more value without the employer having to pay more for it.
That used to be something that society would spit in the face of the fat pigs for. But, now, it's considered sensible everyday practice that none would question. Of course Walmart lets the government shoulder a portion of the compensation of their workers through food stamps. Of course the fact technology enabled employees to produce 40% more value this year results in a raise of 1 or 2%, less than the cost of living increased. Of course they take and take and feel absolutely entitled to every penny of the billions in profit.
At the same time they claim to believe in the principles of a free market. At the same time the free market principles declare that all profit is a mistake, that all profit should quickly go to zero in any sensible market. Huh. Imagine that.
The 'Free market principle' does not necessarily imply zero profits. It's more along the line of:
The profits should stay in line with the risks that the enterprise needs to take. More risky business sectors should (e.g. more upfront investments required) produce higher profits. Same as riskier bonds commanding a premium over t-bills.
But I agree that a lot of big players have managed to position themselves outside any 'free markets'
