Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Veni, vidi, teenie weenie yellow polka dot bikini.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Flexible reversible commitments

When you bake a cake, you cannot get the egg back out. Everything you do is permanent. If you get a job, you're committed to that commute, that work and those people. You cannot decide not to come into work due to not feeling it. I find this unacceptable. Our culture is obsessed with productivity and profit at the cost of extreme commitments for minimal pay and no dignity. Amazon warehouse workers are worked hard so you can have next day delivery. Can we create a culture where people's time is used better?
  (+1, -2)
(+1, -2)
  [vote for,

I have over 340+ ideas published online but I cannot commit to any due to the opportunity cost of committing to one idea. Also I like free time.

In other words, when I commit to something it is irreversible. Cannot get the egg back out the cake.

I don't want to be 6 months into providing services to businesses and suddenly have a complicated work to do everyday without fail.

8 hours a day and a 3 hour commute and going to bed early is not my idea of a good life.

I think a lot of money could be created by selling people reversible commitments.

In other words, you want some extra money but you only want to do the work when you feel it.

So a reversible commitments is a thing that has multiple stops on a path. Each stop is a person that owns the reversible commitment. So you could have a group of 3-5 people with the same commitment. At least one shall do the work. The commitment is load balanced.

Zero hour contracts are bad for employees but good for employers. Companies want the flexibility of the commitment of labour but don't want to pay for it.

What if I could sell people a job that they do only when they feel they want to do it?

You could collect multiple reversible commitments.

You'll be paid for the work you render

But if you don't feel like doing it that day, that's fine too.

I would use a company that was "fair trade" but for people's dignity and flexibility of life.

For example, I am happy to wait a few days for something to arrive rather than next day delivery on Amazon.

Would you pay for a service that people only do when they feel like it? And there's no obligation for a particular person to do the work?

Rather than having 1 employee you have 3 flexible reversible commitments.

At least one person must do the work It's up to them between them who does the work and when.

What I'm trying to say I want a warehouse where everybody is lazy and working at their own pace. It's better for everyone's mental health.

chronological, Jul 15 2022

Second Waltz https://www.youtube...watch?v=phBThlPTBEg
This has nothing whatever to do with this idea. It's just some beautiful music I wanted to share. [Voice, Jul 15 2022]


       There is significant overhead in your proposal. If Mary, Jane, and Jill agree to to a task and none of them want to come in today there will still need to be someone doing something she doesn't want to do. Bring in Stacy and you STILL have that problem. And as you add more people you increase the number who want to do it but can't. You're not only reducing the desirability for the workers but increasing the risk for the employer.
Voice, Jul 15 2022

       The employer should be hidden from the problem and the decision is decided between the members of the flexible reversible commitment.   

       If work can be commodified then it should benefit the worker. And it can benefit the worker and the employer at the same time.   

       Rather than risk of one person not coming in you have risk of 5 people not coming in which should be low.   

       There may have to be a push to force someone to come in. But I'm sure social norms could be established so that convention keeps workplaces ticking over smoothly.   

       The abstraction is the idea. I hope the problems can be worked out. We currently have no in between working yourself to exhaustion and a relaxed lifestyle where life comes before work. This is the problem I'm trying to solve
chronological, Jul 15 2022

       The number and quality of employees must be vetted by the employer. If they're not all you've invented is an employment agency which has certain qualities.
Voice, Jul 15 2022

       I think there are two distinct problems here.   

       One is that old "Iron Law of Wages", which tends to drive wages down to the subsistence level wherever a free market in labour exists. This means people (with a few, privileged exceptions) can't afford not to work themselves to exhaustion.   

       The other is the two-sided nature of commitment. It's your right to back out of a commitment, vs. the other party's right not be let down.   

       Your solution to the first one is based on people's willingness to pay a premium for the products and services of nice companies. Unfortunately, that's being severely tested right now by rising prices and stagnating wages.   

       And I'm not sure you have a solution to the second one; "It's up to them between them" sounds to me like a recipe for peer-to-peer exploitation.
pertinax, Jul 15 2022

       I think the idea is interesting and I also thing the critiques in the annotations are also interesting, but I think all slightly miss the point, which is that this is basically widespread and normal and how significant numbers of humans (if not the majority) (and other animals too) live and work.   

       Anyone who is self employed / subsistence level works in this way, taking jobs as and when they choose to, and doing those jobs on their own schedule.
pocmloc, Jul 15 2022

       //rising prices and stagnating wages//
Can't have both (across the board); the money is going somewhere.
neutrinos_shadow, Jul 17 2022

       Inefficiencies like this drive inflation through the roof. There are supply chains that have deadlines in order to keep products that people need on the shelves.   

       Money has a third component besides people and items paid for: time. The more wasted time it takes to create any specific product, the more it will cost.
RayfordSteele, Jul 17 2022

       //the money is going somewhere//   

       Well yes; returns on capital have been pretty good for a number of years. That's where it's been going, mostly.   

       More recently, it's also been "going" to reflect the breakdown of supply chains. That's a genuine loss of total wealth. You might say that part's been pocketed by four suspicious- looking horsemen.   

       Wait - I see [Ray] already answered that.
pertinax, Jul 18 2022


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle