>

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.
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