"Why would that be a problem, as long as what they feel they're being paid for matches their actual productive output?"
My point is not "it is not OK for someone to work 5 hours a week." If both employer and employee agree to that, it's fine.
The point is, if you hire someone full-time for $X, you probably expect something like 40 hours a week out of them. If they just stop showing up 4 days of the week without talking to you, it's the same as if they somehow managed to withdraw 5 times their salary from your bank account without talking to you.
> The point is, if you hire someone full-time for $X, you probably expect something like 40 hours a week out of them.
Then you'll get 40 hours of physical presence instead. I'm sure that'll go well.
> If they just stop showing up 4 days of the week without talking to you, it's the same as if they somehow managed to withdraw 5 times their salary from your bank account without talking to you.
No it's not, as long as they're doing the job they're supposed to do in full. That's like saying the guy who runs a 100m in 8s is a thief, and should run the whole 10s. It's retarded.
No, it's not. Analogies are hard, you aren't up it it, stop using them.
If someone provides the work you expect, despite actually sleeping 4/5ths of the time, you're getting what you paid for. That they could have provided five times more work is irrelevant.
The only exception is where the employee's presence, and presence of mind, is the product. Such as with a security guard, retail sales rep, manager, etc.
My point is not "it is not OK for someone to work 5 hours a week." If both employer and employee agree to that, it's fine.
The point is, if you hire someone full-time for $X, you probably expect something like 40 hours a week out of them. If they just stop showing up 4 days of the week without talking to you, it's the same as if they somehow managed to withdraw 5 times their salary from your bank account without talking to you.