>

\^
Exactly this. I've personally experienced a new CEO come in and make out like he's everyone's friend. Laughing at your jokes, sharing a joke with you, telling you how valuable you are to the organization, and then BAM -- you come to work the next day and there sits half the executive team (minus the chicken-shit CEO, of course) watching as you and a few others clear out your desk and collect your layoff papers before being escorted off the property.
Fuck the business world.
I don't mind people working 12-14hour days. If they're happy doing it so be it. 
I don't understand it and its not for me, but who cares. Where i start to to have a problem with these people is more often than not, they try to push this lifestyle onto other coworkers who prefer to spend their time at home/doing other shit. 
Like, you can stay at the office until 9p.m. but if you honestly believe i will accept a teams-meeting after 5p.m., you can screw right off. And don't whine about it either, because I'm not the one doing too little, you're the one doing "too much". >

I don't mind people who work 14 hours days. Where I mind is when they basically end up "setting the standard" at their workplace and then everyone else gets compared to them when it comes time for performance reviews, promotions, etc.
It's an unrealistic standard for anyone with a family or other responsibilities or, to be honest, a healthy work-life balance and hobbies. It's nothing to do with being "lazy." Sorry but I have 2 young kids and 2 dogs, and probably spend more time "working" at the end of the day than someone who spends 14 hrs at their actual workplace... because I come home and have to cook and clean and look after babies and wake up through the night. But to an employer, I work "less." Is that lazy?? Or would I be justified in being annoyed if my employer asked why I can't/don't work as much as that asshole? >

Most performance appraisals are essentially a does not meet, meets, exceeds type of breakdown. So if these people are extra dedicated and churning out more productivity while maintaining quality, they are fair to set the bar for exceeds. It's the people who are unsatisfied that they get a smaller raise or bonus when they only get a "meets" that complain and honestly, I don't get the complaint. >

Imo, that "exceeds" should be reserved for people whose SKILLS and the work they accomplish in the allotted hours exceed expectations. Not people who simply exceed normal work hours.
Someone who does better work in 8 hours is better than someone who does the same level of work but just stays late. >

I agree with your last point. But if they are otherwise equal and one person is just willing to work more to accomplish more, that person exceeds. Doing an adequate job in your normal schedule is acceptable or meets. I would say someone who needs to stay late to perform the same amount of work that an average person gets done in a standard shift would not even be a meets. >

I'm not sure about this. Because, if you are going to promote based on willingness to stay late to accomplish more (when their actual skills or rate of work accomplishment is the same, and they're only getting more done because they're staying late) then you are essentially setting the expectation that they will stay late forever. So someone who stays late consistently one year will get promoted to a manager position and then may stop staying late and just do mediocre work, but now they're getting paid more than someone else who only stays a normal amount (the hours they are actually assigned and expected to work) and getting the job done fine. Both those people should actually be paid the same and be looked at the same for promotion.
Staying late should not be normalized in any sort of salaried position. If it's hourly, and someone wants to stay late to get paid overtime, great. They should be allowed to do that. But let's stop promoting people who stay late in a salaried position over people who don't. All that does is set an expectation that people SHOULD stay late, and we should not have job expectations that are outside of normal work hours. >

Promotion shouldn't be based on past productivity anyway unless you still do similar work. To go from worker to manager is a whole different skillet and the best worker does not always make the best manager >

I don't hate people who work 14 hour days.  I just shake my head, wonder how they do it, and feel glad that I don't have to do it. 
But as for your remark about those who don't work or don't work as many hours as  you think valuable "wasting their lives"....I've always believed that nobody has ever lain on their deathbed wishing they had worked more. >

You're right. Most people on their deathbeds, wish more than anything else, that they had spent more time with their loved ones, had a hobby,  taken 1 more vacation, had time for 1 more celebration, lived a bit more than they did, seen more than they allowed themselves to, etc.. not that they had worked more hours. Not that they had drained away all of their energy resources into work. Not that they had sacrificed watching their children grow up so they could world endless hours. And absolutely not that they had sacrificed the entirety of their adult lives towards making money for their employers. >

And even more people have laid there wishing they weren’t dying yet >

Facts. But not for more time spent working. >

I come from a family of people that pretty much always want to work. We've all worked either immediately after or during school, including my current younger brothers.
I'm not quite as fervent as them but I make an effort. I work around 8 hours a day of somewhat physical labour, and that's enough for me. My boss, on the other hand, comes in for 10 hour days every now and then on his own accord.
I'm fortunate enough to work somewhere with an amazing culture that doesn't expect anything beyond what we're told. If we want to work more, we work more. The heart of what I'm getting at is that both me and my boss have a livable wage. He has a bit more money than me each month because he works more, but I can rent and live in the city without an issue with my paycheck by working 50 hours a week.
Wanting to work more is fantastic.
Having to work more is what people are angry about.
My boss doesn't harp on me for not working 10 hours. He doesn't expect it, because it's not what we agreed upon. He doesn't say "Look at her, she works 10 hours a day too, why can't you?" Because he's not looking to exploit me. People don't hate hard workers, they hate businesses who use hard workers as examples to strive for, rather than letting everyone work their agreed upon hours and being thankful (via money) to those who work overtime.
Your viewpoint is reductive and toxic. Good on you for working however much you work, and I'm sure that the occasional person might hate hard workers out of jealousy, but claiming this kind of generalization of the labour force isn't fair nor is it productive. We're all in this shit together. >

I think the problem is that it isn't just about the boss directly saying it. The boss SHOULD be praising said worker (while checking in to make sure they know they are allowed to not work as much, but hey some people need the money) and if they're more productive giving them a raise based on that.
That means everyone else feels like they got shafted when they get lower raises comparatively and feel compared to said worker. I mean that line of thinking is prevalent enough on this thread in general.
Someone working harder and longer than everyone else will always make them feel like us vs them, regardless of what the boss does. Because even if the boss says "hey this is totally optional and for people who want more money", when raises come around it wouldn't be fair if the boss just didn't take into account this person's work ethic. >

It would absolutely be fair if the boss ignored this person's voluntary and unsolicited overtime when calculating raises. A good boss aks herself why this person is working so much. There are only 4 possible answers and only one of them is maybe worthy of a raise:


Trying to show how dedicated they are by working extra even though they hours aren't actually needed to meet goals


Earning extra by working unsolicited overtime


Can't get their work done in the regular time alotted even though others can


The company genuinely needs someone to work those hours and this is the only person who is willing or can


In the first 2, the person is having the company pay (via overtime where applicable) for them to meet their own personal goals even when those don't align with company goals. That isn't worthy of a raise. 
3 shows the person is actually not doing a good job and it's costing the company extra money to employ them, so no raise due. 
The 4th one could maybe warrant a raise, but if this person is available to work overtime, they are already getting paid for that effort. If others can't work overtime because they have a family, then not giving them as big of a raise is punishing them for having work/life balance. And this kind of bs is what has broken the world, leading people to believe that sacrificing themselves for a business is in their best interest. >

I think this depends on the nature of the person in question. First, Im sure the comparison thing is a concern for some people. But not all hard workers are terribly effective. They can create a lot of extra work for people by blasting their team with emails over the weekend and not always for stuff that actually needs to be communicated immediately or requires follow up. I’ve also had hard workers on my team that had no concept of efficiency or prioritization. One person in particular made a lot of noise about not getting promoted despite all of her long hours. But she didn’t actually produce more or better work. >

I work with someone who stays in late every day yet for some reason when I get in every morning nothing got done when that person was staying in late... "almost" as if it's just for show. >

No one cares you want to work more often than not. No one will care when you drop dead of a heart attack in your 40's because you were a 'hard worker'(I've heard of lots of stories of this happening). Hell even the business that owned your life doesn't care the second you died because now they have to replace such a hard worker. 
I've watched my dad work 70+ hours a week from his 20's to retirement, he is still in good health but that isn't the life I ever want. Every joint in his body is shot.
I'm happy at 40 hours a week. If you want to put in 80 hours go for it. Why would I care what someone else does with their life? >

Working long hours doesn’t necessarily equate to working hard. You can work 5 hours and grind the whole time or you can work for 14 hours and get distracted and do other things. The two are not synonymous >

This is very true. I work 12 hours shifts, and the amount of actual labor I do on any given day varies wildly. Some days I'm busy the entire time, and other days I'm struggling to find any menial task to make time go by. >

If someone doesn't want to have a life outside of work,  and work is their only relationship and hobby, that's fine. But those of us who demand a work/ home balance aren't lazy because we refuse to be run through the ringer like that. 

They don't want to look in the mirror and admit to themselves that they could do better and they are wasting their lives.

There's more to life that just work. We are out here enjoying the life we have, and it's not a waste. We aren't in survival mode. We're in living life mode, and there's a difference. 

They don't want people to realize they they add nothing of value at all.

Those of you who live to work instead of work to live have viewed those of us who demand a work/life balance this way forever. We know our worth. And just because we don't want to work ourselves into the ground doesn't mean we don't have value. Honestly,  it just sounds like you have a superiority complex because you have no life outside of work. And it's coming off as jealousy. If you don't have an identity outside of work,  that's a you problem. If there's nothing interesting about you outside of work,  that's a you problem. You can sit and work yourself into a forced early retirement if you want,  and not know who you are when you have nothing left when that happens, if that's what you want to do. The rest of us are out here actually living life outside of work because we have a work/life balance.

If they love work and that's their life, why do you have to scream about it?

The only time I have ever pitched a fit over this,  is when an employer decides that since this person can be worked into the ground,  and expected to live and breathe for the sole purpose of making someone else rich, then everyone else should too. And those same employers start stripping our time with our children and our off time away, or start rejecting vacation time as a result. You do you.   And I'm completely fine with that.  Right up until the very second it starts negatively impacting my quality of life. >

When I enter into an employment contract it's literally that, a contract. I give them 40 hours of my week and they give me money (and whatever benefits we agree upon). If they want more of my time they have to renegotiate and my price is higher.
If someone wants to work twice as much as I do for the same pay that is their choice but I'll be damned if that is the expectation. I know what I'm worth and expect to be appropriately compensated. While I'm on the clock I will work diligently and focused on my job. I am absolutely a "hard worker" but my life priorities are for other things than undercutting my employment contract by giving my company free/discounted labor.
To your point there are some people who do complain and have their expectations set way too high but my issue with the guy who works 14 hours a day isn't if they're a hard worker, it's when management expects me to accept the same terms of employment. >

Yeah that's the difference between hourly and salary with us hourly people it's like YEAH 14 HOUR DAYS WOOHOO >

they aren't afraid of being compared, they're afraid of being exploited
if your boss saw someone sprinting during a marathon she'd wonder why all her runners just jog >

**for the same salary
That's the terrible thing about people who work into the night. They do it for FREE for someone else's gain >

And when they record half the hours worked the next project starts with a quarter of the budget >

I kind of feel like you could flip the roles in this pretty easily.  Like i've met plenty of dudes who post stupid memes about how hard they work and how everyone who doesn't work 80 hours a week doesn't know work.
I find both to be coping with their own sense of value.  People burning themselves out on work, or avoiding home by being at work, are just more encouraged because obviously employers benefit from the attitude. >

I don't feel like there's that much hate for those people. More just dislike for being compared with them (being called lazy like your post) and being pressured to work like them. People act like they're superior for working that much. But Plenty of us have worked periods like that and know it leads to an unhealthy life devoid of enjoyment. There's no time to maintain your fitness and eat healthy let alone enjoy your hobbies, spend time with family, or other things that make life worth living. >

I scoff at (I don't hate) "hard workers" because years and years of working hard has taught me that it's a sucker's game.
You're more likely to be rewarded for being an ass-kisser, a friend of the boss and a company man than you will be as a hard worker. >

Our you'll get laid off or fired for whatever reason they choose. Companies foam at the mouth to cut labor costs any chance they get as long as upper management gets their bonuses and if the companies public they have a shareholders asses to kiss. It's why loyalty is not only outdated,  most people advise against it, including going above and beyond on hours.