That's the argument I made above. If they get paid 100% of their salary for 80% of the output, so should everyone else. I compared it to smokers taking smoke breaks while non-smokers aren't allowed to take random 5 minute breaks.
The problem is that nobody can even define output accurately. I know people who output more in 25% of the time than some of their peers manage at 100%. But that's not how compensation in this industry is structured, so it is moot.
Sure, but it's fair to say that if someone has 75% availability and must miss meetings because of external events, their output is affected.
Besides, I am talking about a drop in output for a given employee, so the comparison to other employees is pointless. If my productivity dropped by 25%, I'd hear about it pretty quickly, and I doubt my explanation would matter much in my performance review.
Your company must have some good metrics or they are measuring clicks per minute if you think they would notice 25% output growth very quickly. Likely you just wouldn’t get promoted and that might happen to your coworkers in due time
And that comparison breaks down as soon as you go from making widgets to creating nebulous IP. Who can really say if the smoker on non smoker writes better code in their 8 hrs
