Is UK work ethic different from US work ethic?

[Weaver]

My personal work ethic is that working very hard for a short period of time is going to be far more productive than the number of hours you put in. Quantity definitely isn't everything, especially if you're at risk of burnout. Then again, it doesn't always pan out this way for my work productivity...

Studies are actually showing this is true. I recall reading a story about a company in France that dropped their office hours to 6 hours a day from 8 hours a day and their productivity (measured by some sort of output) went UP by 150%.

 

[Wadders]

Generally we don't really do work. Most people are on benefits.

Bullshit.

Moving on, we (the UK) seem to have people who have a "live for the weekend type attitude" and don't really see their job as anything other than a means to get money for spending on stuff they need, like bills, and want, like beer.

Then there are others, who seem to live to work, and will take every second of overtime offered to them, god knows what drives them on.

Those are just 2 types of people I've come across, I think we have a mix of work ethics but overall most people work pretty hard to bring home the bacon. I'm not sure how all that compares to a US work ethic though. I'd just say less people live for their work perhaps, preferring to leave it at work and not bring it home.

No it's not "bullshit", no matter how hard the BBC, the Guardian and the Mirror try to lie about it.

The latest figures show 5mn on housing benefit alone. We are increasingly becoming a nation where the few work and an ever increasing number sponge. Labour's ruinous 13 years of bribery created a massive handout culture.

5 million out of 62 million isn't really "most people" though is it.

However, I don't deny that a lot of people sponge and abuse the system, no doubt because it is easy to abuse; but the way the poster I quoted phrased his/her post, they were making it sound as if almost the entire nation is workshy and lazy, which is simply not true.

Also, ever think how many people on housing benefit, unemployment benefits etc. actually deserve the money they get? out of the 5 million on housing benefits, not all of them will be scroungers.

For example, a person who has worked most of their life and is suddenly unable to work (for whatever reason, being laid off and having difficultly finding new work) surely deserves unemployment benefits, as they have been paying for them out of their wages all their working life.

Overall I agree that we do have too many scroungers, but their are people who deserve benefits, it was the wording and the implications of that post that annoyed me.

 

[Liberaliter]

Generally we don't really do work. Most people are on benefits.

Bullshit.

Moving on, we (the UK) seem to have people who have a "live for the weekend type attitude" and don't really see their job as anything other than a means to get money for spending on stuff they need, like bills, and want, like beer.

Then there are others, who seem to live to work, and will take every second of overtime offered to them, god knows what drives them on.

Those are just 2 types of people I've come across, I think we have a mix of work ethics but overall most people work pretty hard to bring home the bacon. I'm not sure how all that compares to a US work ethic though. I'd just say less people live for their work perhaps, preferring to leave it at work and not bring it home.

No it's not "bullshit", no matter how hard the BBC, the Guardian and the Mirror try to lie about it.

The latest figures show 5mn on housing benefit alone. We are increasingly becoming a nation where the few work and an ever increasing number sponge. Labour's ruinous 13 years of bribery created a massive handout culture.

"Most people are on benefits". What, 5 or so million out of 62 million? So what point were you trying to make exactly? It sounds more like you read a Daily Mail headline and decided to post your false notion here.

 

[catalyst8]

The UK has been predominantly a socialist country for some time

Playing a bit fast and lose with the term socialist there. We certainly have elements of socialism, but we're far from predominantly socialist[...]

Nahh, I'm with wadderz here, have been extremely left wing for a little too long. Fucking Hug-a-Hoody nonsense... When this current generation retires and we're left with a load of soft-degree media students and drug addled benefits-for-life rioters to keep the country ticking over.. we're all doomed![...]

I was born in the '60s & there's never been a socialist government during my voting lifetime; Great Britain & Northern Ireland is a social democracy with a capitalist free market, how do you equate that with socialism? That is to say, how is the means of production & exchange owned & regulated by the population & not the free market?

The most socialist aspects of our nation are the National Health Service & state education (the dole can be traced back to the Roman occupation, the Anglo-Saxons, & later the Church), so if you consider health care & education as socialist features then perhaps so. Bear in mind though that the US has about the same number of people with no health care as the population of the whole of England.

The latest figures show 5mn on housing benefit alone. We are increasingly becoming a nation where the few work and an ever increasing number sponge. Labour's ruinous 13 years of bribery created a massive handout culture.

I was under the impression that 25% or so of that figure are retired pensioners. Incidentally are you aware that Blair's New Labour was more 'Thatcherite' in its promotion of an unregulated free market than the Conservative opposition, & that lack of regulation is exactly the reason this recession occurred?

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

We used to have a pretty strong socialist bent from 48 to the end of the 1970's (government control of various sectors, such as the railways, electricity, mining, at one point even car manufacturing), and pretty much entirely socialist during WWII; but it was largely abandoned as it was found to be pretty counter productive.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with criticism of New Labour's deregulation; I don't expect government's to be in possession of a crystal ball, and, whilst it did eventually cause a bust, it was also a major contributor to the boom that came before it. The line between over-regulation (which can have disastrous economic consequences - one can see the Black Wednesday collapse as being attributable to this) and under-regulation, and finding that line (unless there is some previous precedent - i.e. if it ain't broke don't fix) I can't see being a particularly easy job. With regards to banking regulations, something was broken, the fix seemed to work...and then it didn't.

That doesn't mean that Labour are free from criticism - there's plenty of times they cocked up and should have known better, and I'm far from their greatest fan - but this isn't an instance of it. Government spending in a manner that demonstrated an odd belief that a boom period of economic growth was going to last forever was rather lacking in common sense, for example; but criticising a lack of hindsight strikes me as a tad unfair, and not very useful.

 

[Martin Toney]

I'm irish, but i live in the north or ireland now, so i technically live in the UK, can I weigh in on the matter?

Spoiler

Okay, I guess I'll grant you permission.

See, I found that in the north, there is a clear divide between those who want to work and those who don't, I personally think that if the distribution of unemployment funds where more closely regulated then we could force more of the lazy bones into working. Not to say all the lazy bones are perfectly capable of working, I'm unemployed but that's because no one will hire me, even though I'm a very qualified individual, when they see my walking stick they tend to run a mile, and I haven't had a job in around 4-6 months. But I find that a great deal of Americans don't work because (and here comes the fury from trolls) they are either to stupid (ie: under educated) or just damn lazy (a lifetime of government benefits, why would they want to work?). And what makes it worse is that these are facts and not my opinion (but someone will surely shout). So I personally find a very clear divide between the 2 work ethics, I work hard for my money when I'm employed. And I always will.

 

[Susurrus]

So I can only speak for law, but:
- In the UK, corporate lawyers end up working scary amounts of hours - its not uncommon to have to be in past midnight, or even pull all-nighters. Having said that, from what I hear from friends I have who have worked in New York, it's even more common over there, AND they get less holiday and routinely work weekends as well.

 

[Bassik]

So I can only speak for law, but:
- In the UK, corporate lawyers end up working scary amounts of hours - its not uncommon to have to be in past midnight, or even pull all-nighters. Having said that, from what I hear from friends I have who have worked in New York, it's even more common over there, AND they get less holiday and routinely work weekends as well.

How can anyone live like that?

Having worked ina. Few food service places that's not really true. Owning a restaurant is a real good way to not make a lot of money. Very very few restaurant owners will ever "make off like bandits" even if everything goes well.

How very strange, in the Netherlands most restaurant owners make quite a decent living, even though they pay their workers a fair wage.

Working for two bucks a hour... that is a slave wage. You lot should stand up for your rights.

 

[wizzy555]

Yes it's different, but it's far worse in France, shops close in the early evening, everything stops on a Sunday.

 

[Susurrus]

So I can only speak for law, but:
- In the UK, corporate lawyers end up working scary amounts of hours - its not uncommon to have to be in past midnight, or even pull all-nighters. Having said that, from what I hear from friends I have who have worked in New York, it's even more common over there, AND they get less holiday and routinely work weekends as well.

How can anyone live like that?

Well, it's well paid, you get time off in lieu when things are quiet (at least in the UK), and it's a bit of a challenge. But law in the US? I'm not sure, really.

 

[surg3n]

It varies I guess. There are a lot of lazy people out there, in all countries. But work ethic can spread. I mean, look at me, posting gibberish on The Escapist when I should be working, but...

I've worked here for 13 years and this company has never fulfilled a promise of further education, promotion, or anything since I've been here. My assistant just retired and due to financial restrictions they aren't replacing her, they have cancelled the training I asked for 6 years ago, no pay increase in 3 years, I get a lecture everytime I ask for a holiday, and I'm over-worked at the best of times. So these days I say fuck them all. I already told my boss to get used to things not happening, if they can't replace people, train people, or show appreciation and provide what they promised, then they get nothing extra from me. Fuck them.
The straw that broke the camels back... I get home from work, and 30 minutes later I get a call - total powercut at work, servers all screwed up, so I have to come back in. Takes 30 minutes to get there, takes 29 minutes to get everything working, then another 30 minutes to get home. But alas, I'm not entitled to any overtime or call-out, because I was in for less than 30 minutes, and that's the minimum they will process.

That rant doesn't represent my usual work ethic - I've worked through summer vacations to get projects completed, worked countless hours of unpaid overtime, I cover 3 other employees holidays, and on top of that I'm an indi developer, working an extra 25+ hours a week doing that. My work ethic is fine, it's the bullshit companies full of managers who can barely keep their eyes open most of the time, who need to get a fricken grip.

 

[JasonBurnout16]

Well I'm from the UK, and I'd say that we seem to have an attitude of "live for the weekend", where a job is merely 9-5, 5 days a week. While there's nothing wrong with that (And I foresee my dream job requiring me to give a lot more), I'd also suggest it's hard to get a grip on the UK's work ethic, with a lot of areas struggling with unemployment. I'm sure many people would work hard, if they had the jobs to do so.

It's exceedingly difficult to get excited and pumped about a dead end job, that's unlikely to ever lead anywhere. We don't have a version of 'The American Dream'. A lot of families just have to make enough money to get by at the moment sadly.

Just for some background, at the moment I'm a student and I have plenty of student loans at the moment. I've got a job lined up for when I head back to University working in the Library 2 hours a day (not including paid overtime), 5 days a week (So a 10 hour week + University work). The money I get from work will just cover my living costs. So I guess that's a fairly good work ethic, seeing as many students at my University don't even want a job.

I'm debating trying to get a job at the local supermarket though. While that'll be more hours, and so more work, I'm unsure how it will impact my studying. Plus, working in the library will look better on my CV for future jobs, yet will supply me with less hours in the long run. It's a dilema.