Jamie Oliver tells the truth!!!

John1993_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you have taken my post and extrapolated that you cannot have sufficient income and sufficient personal life. .

No, I've not, as I now have a nice family life and a good senior banker's salary, so know that you can happily have both.

If you push earnings down the priority list, though, it will probably give you a sightly skewed view of what is affordable, compared to people who've concentrated more on earning.

the_flying_pig

total poppycock, by both Oliver and HAMISH.

Oliver's millions have nothing to do with 'hard work' in a sense that can be held up as serious model for others to emulate. he was one of many thousands of other poorly-paid London assistant chefs when the BBC happened to stumble across him in a documentary. every penny that he's made since have been on the back of his celebrity. the BBC picked him for his looks and charm/smarm. the fact that he may or may not have been putting in 100 hour weeks chopping vegetables or whatever at the time couldn't have been less relevant to the BBC.

his criticisms of UK workers seem [unsurprisingly given the source] stupid.

his tales of 23 year olds getting their mums to phone in are pointless [since such behaviour is absurd and must be so rare as to be almost unheard of] and daft [since again, isn't one of the shows that he makes so much money out of deliberately supposed to be about him trying to give jobs to people who are entertainingly (from a viewer perspective) near-hopeless cases?].

as for eastern european workers then fair enough, but the sorts of working pattern that he seems to be hinting at are only really something that's suitable for people before they have kids - is he saying that people are only any use as workers until [roughly] they turn thirty? although i suppose if by your mid 20s you've married a former model who wants to be a stayathome mum & have access to hte kind of childcare options that a seven-figure contract with Sainsburys buys you it might be a bit different.

and H's little gems of wisdom on this thread, well, i mean, they're just mindless drivel, obviously. quite aside from the consistency [e.g. i'm sure he's said on here before that he didn't go to university?] and plausibility [the amount of time that he so obviously spends trawling for snippets about/obsessing over/posting about HPI is in no way at all consistent with the schedules of any of the big shot super-professionals who i know... in particular the late night posts, the middle aged guys who I know who put in >60 hour weeks are usually in bed by 10pm at the latest] i fundamentally disagree with his daft moralising about the values & work patterns that he claims to believe people 'should' be working.

Graham_Devon

John1993 wrote: »

No, I've not, as I now have a nice family life and a good senior banker's salary, so know that you can happily have both.

If you push earnings down the priority list, though, it will probably give you a sightly skewed view of what is affordable, compared to people who've concentrated more on earning.

Well you are still extrapolating. No where have I said that I feel it's wise to push earnings down the priority list.

I've said everything in moderation and that I wouldn't want to work those sort of hours.

Working high hours doesn't necessarily mean high income either. Similarly hard work doesn't automatically mean riches. You keep talking of your banker status. Good for you, but it doesn't make you better than others, neither does it make you correct....which is the tone I am seeing in your posts. Hamish is the same.

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In our organisation I'm one step below C-level and still do 100+ hour weeks a dozen or more times a year, with a 60 hour week as a bare minimum.

I'm on call 24/7, I work at least 3-4 hours a day on weekends, and I check emails daily on holidays. My bonus however, regularly exceeds my base salary, and my share awards will allow me to retire very comfortably at 50 if I keep this pace going.

Someone should have a word with your boss then to ensure they are getting the best out of you. You spend most of your time on here.

thedalmeny

I honestly don't get this fascination with hours worked per week, perhaps in a sector where your hours are directly linked to the volume but in more complex careers it's not the case.

For example, two team members gave a task of equal complexity and size;

- Person 'A' works 100 hours a week but does not achieve their target
- Person 'B' works 40 hours a week and does achieve their target

It's perhaps not about how "hard" somebody works but the way they work and how they apply their expertise.

While Person 'A' has tried their best and you certainly can't say they haven't put in the effort, the reality is they have missed their target. Where Person 'B' has achieved it, so the most effective member of staff is 'B'.

A business doesn't care about how many hours you work, they care about whether you can achieve your target. Any manager worth their salt is going to delegate an important task to somebody they know can achieve it, not on the basis of how hard they work.

Some weeks i've worked stupidly long hours, some i haven't.. I do so in line with the objectives i have, i don't do so to hit some kind of imaginary figure so i can sit and feel i work harder than anyone else. Then again i love my job, i don't leave my work phone on 24/7 all week because i want to appear dedicated.

I've also yet to have a member of any team i've been responsible for who could work 100 hours a week and their performance not begin to drop off considerably, it's just not maintainable. So it's essentially pointless working somebody that hard, you end up with somebody doing 100 in the office but really doing 50-60 hours due to their drop in performance.

J_i_m

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I worked regular 100 hour weeks when I was younger, and even more as an unpaid intern while in Uni.

We all did.

We did?

Don't assume everyone is like you, and don't put yourself upon a pedestal becsuse quite honestly your way is no more valid than the next.

100 hour working weeks do not some how make you a better person or mean you have a stronger work ethic. It's more to do with how productive you are. I'd wager that a substantial amount of your 100+ hours are spent on this forum and unless you work for Martin Lewis that probably isn't being very productive for your employer.

And long hours can actually be dangerous and put others at risk.

How would you feel if someone fell asleep whist driving and crashed into you because they had spent most of the week "working"?

How would you feel if a exhausted mechanic forgot to check the torque on your wheels because they'd been servicing cars for 100 hours already that week and their fatigue took over, would you be pleased if your wheel fell off on the motorway?

Or how about the nurse who is so fatigued that they dispense the wrong medication to you?

Don't glorify long hours, they're not always a good idea.

thescouselander

wymondham wrote: »

Should people be proud for working 100 hours a week?

Great if that's your thing and you're happy, but surely the idea is to work less and earn more? ie be a politician?

I'd certainly suggest not. Quality workers have to option of securing decent jobs with reasonable hours. If someone is doing 100 hours they're probably working in the city or doing a rubbish job with ridiculous hours because there is no other choice.

Jamie Oliver should realise its not that locally sourced workers are less able but that the quality workers have just taken jobs with better terms and conditions and as a result he has ended up with the dross.

zagfles

John1993 wrote: »

Advice on savings can help, but you can't decide to be non-materialistic and then be taken seriously when you say that houses cost too much money.

Yes, houses cost "too much" if you've made a conscious decision to eschew higher earnings to spend time with your family.

You don't get it. An opinion that something is expensive doesn't necessarily mean the holder of that opinion can't afford it, or even wants it.

I think houses are expensive. But I don't want one (I already have one). I think £1 for a can drink in the gym roboserve is expensive. Doesn't mean I can't afford it. Perhaps if I whinge about the price they'll tell me to do some overtime to pay for it :rotfl:

zagfles

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Working high hours doesn't necessarily mean high income either.

Yes, anyone who needs to work excessive hours to get a decent income is doing something seriously wrong.

makeyourdaddyproud

100 hours is a mugs game, I would never turn that amount of time to a business solely focused on making the owner rich. I suspect several people on here are business owners running similar sweatshops.

In my 30 year working career in banking software, I can honestly say that I've worked only 2/3rds of that time, and in only a 35hr work week.

I have enjoyed breaks of 6 weeks in full work years, other years a completely self indulgent break.

My accidental career was well chosen, and i'm paid up well - before 50.