As much as I love these arguments, they don’t solve anything and can make things a lot worse.
A lot of companies have bosses who are putting in significant hours. They sometimes do this because they have the income and familial situation to support it. Sometimes the bosses have no families, or have nannies, or are not the main caretaker. Sometimes they just have “no life”.
Japan is a good example. Incredibly long working hours and incredibly work-centric culture at all levels.
The way to argue better working conditions isn’t to point fingers at other people and ask “well why aren’t they also having to suffer like me?”.
I think people really missed my point, and thought I was somehow arguing in favour of poor working conditions.
My point was that the Lemmy response that “well why doesn’t the boss do this?” is not the right negotiation tactic.
The right negotiation tactic is, for example, to argue that it’s in the benefit of the company and society to improve working conditions. For example, you argue that by allowing remote working, you are encouraging not only a happier and more productive environment, but you are widening access and better able to recruit the top people.
There are lots of ways to argue for better conditions. The reaction of “well the boss doesn’t do it so I won’t either” is not a great tactic. If the boss does put in crazy hours, where does that leave your negotiation stance?