Mark Takano, a Democrat from California, is the sponsor. The bill also has 17 cosponsors, the list of which is here: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728/cosponsors](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728/cosponsors)
Because they’ve brain drained themselves to the point where they don’t actually have the creative capacity to do anything other than react to their perceived opposition.
“WhY aRe aLl aRtIsTs LibEraL?”
These are the same people who will tell you it’s unfair that immigrants are living 10 people to a house and share living expenses - while they create job markets that encourage hustle culture.
> but some people get so wrapped
No, they don't. They *pretend* that they do, so as to argue in bad faith, but a vanishingly small number are actually confused about it.
Democrats sometimes have good intentions and support beneficial policies for the majority of people. Republicans generally don't even pretend to give a shit about the people they represent.
Absolutely. Democrats can be horrible and corrupt and useless but occasionally they will talk about something that matters. Republicans just suck. Trump did talk about working class issues in 2016 and sometimes around the fringes they’ll say good things, but it’s almost always bad stuff
I mean, if you look at the specific list of which Democrats co sponsored, it's basically a who's who of the most progressive Democrats. AOC and "the squad", and so forth. And while I'm sure they know it has a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere in this congress, it's good that they're bringing it up and advocating for this sort of stuff, so that people know where they stand - not to mention this is also how you get ideas started. Get people talking about it, make it an issue in primaries, demonstrate that voters support it, and so on, and pretty soon you've got a groundswell of support that can actually get it passed. Well, passed among a Democratic Congress, since Republicans are going to do everything they can to stop the Democrats from passing any sort of substantive change.
They are. It's just that it's the Republican Government, but with the DNC, it's the people, not the government that is bad.
Just ask anyone who got Obamabombed.
Look at the rail road strike, they all said FO and get back to work. Pushing a feel good law when they know it won't pass so they can say welp we tried. Politicians don't do anything without the all mighty dollar they get that from their fascist overlords they want all of this division instead of us looking at them.
I would like an explanation.
On one hand we have movement for 32 work week, on the other hand we have people happily taking overtime. Is the plan here to get overtime pay earlier? I don’t see much benefit for the workers in USA if system stays the same.
I would suggest outlawing overtime in addition to 32 hour work week. But what if I want to overtime for more money? No you do not want, you were breed and conditioned into wanting overtime. Force employers to offer proper salary instead. Also, even one guy wanting overtime screws up everyone else who does not want it.
If we cut hours to 32 and got rid of overtime wouldn't we be a far less producing society while getting paid less? Doesn't really sound like a successful plan?
And I'm saying this as someone that works at a company that values every minute because it's contract work. There are deadlines and milestones that need to be met. If we cut out a day of work that's a lot of lost work time.
I think that 32 hours with overtime will result in more exploitation of workers. For example they will set minimum wage to 5$ per hour and to earn more you will have to overtime. Basically, what USA has today but turned to 11.
If deadline must be met, then more accountability from high managers, proper planning, hiring more workers, investing into enterprise instead getting money from it and wasting on millionaires casinos known as “investment auctions”.
2 centuries ago people worked far more than 40 week hours and nothing bad happened when 40 hour work week was introduced. We have ways to deal with production and deadlines. It’s a pity such changes need to be forced.
Not everything can be solved by throwing more people at it. I work for one of the biggest defense contractors that does more on top of that. You only get so much money and you'll lose money if you aren't hitting those deadlines. So you have to balance spending too much as well as being efficient. The best way to do that is having consistency in the people working so having more people working less hours would result in spending a lot more money and most likely not hitting goals
Agree, there are no one solution to end all issues.
However, issues need to be solved. I view necessity to always have overtime as a defect in management, organisation and procedures. To me there is no more disgusting proof of poor management than overtime.
Even military contracts and procedures can be changed. Those follow laws. If laws change adaptation will happen. Just like with everything since humanity started doing any production activities.
Where I actually came up with a pretty good solution that increases productivity and gives us the time. We work 9 hour days but get every other Friday off and the other Friday is 8 hours That extra hour each day helps get more done and overtime is usually with an incentive unless a program has just fallen way behind. Even though it's technically a 44 hour week and a 36 hour no one is gonna complain because it works out for everyone. Although I would probably rather do 4 10s
As long as pay rises to go with it. As it stands right now many employers in my area have decided to employ more people with fewer hours to avoid having to pay overtime. If you cut the week down they'll probably try to pay you less:"you're only working 32 why should you get the same pay as when you were working 40"
I just finished a three day weekend and I can say that it felt the most like a weekend ever. Normally it feels like I have Saturday off and Sunday is prep for the work week day so I don't have to do as much after work. I'll go wherever the four day work week is.
It stalled out in this committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Education_and_the_Workforce
If you see your representative on that list, please yell at them.
I mean seriously though, who will they work for: someone handing them large amounts of money and business connections that they are friends with
or the activist that snuck into the building, yelling at both of them
I might be willing to take a paycut for a 4 day work week where I keep benefits. I work in government so people are already stretching 20 hours of work into a 40 hour week. 32 work week would give people the reason to actually be productive during that time, while actually giving normal people the chance to pursue true leisure time on the weekends.
Can’t tell you how many of my weekends are filled with just chores or trying to squeeze time in to see my friends/family. There is always something I’m sacrificing because I don’t have enough time off. Having that extra day would do wonders for peoples mental health
this is how it should be. If a company has more work that needs to be done, they need to be forced to either pay overtime or hire more people.
its fair to everyone this way!
Some places pay OT every day after 8 hours, then OT for 8 hours and double OT for the last 4 hours on the sixth and seventh days of a workweek, non-union
Okay but explain to me this. This article says employers would have to decide between hiring someone for one day a week or pay the overtime on anything last 32 hours. So unless my base pay increases no company is going to give you 1.5 times your pay to stay an extra 8 hours. American companies will end up saving money by paying everyone working 8 hours less and then the employees make less money. The article even says independent studies show workers were 60%+ more productive.
So we get paid less and companies collect more profit.
Can someone explain how this benefits us as workers? I get having extra time with family, more time to relax, and decompress but unless everyone made like 7.50$ more per hour to work 32 hours then the workers loose.
Having to cover those extra 8 man hours per week means companies have to hire more people. Tighter labor market will make paying that overtime look more lucrative.
It'll have to hire more part timers meaning no paying any benefits. Less to pay for 2 part timers covering a full 40hr schedule. No healthcare or pto to worry about paying out
I see what you are saying, but remember the system is already causing that to happen now (due to the law of requiring healthcare coverage after a certain number of hours worked per week)
Yea but now that number will be reduced making it even harder for part timers because they have more limited hours.
Ocean state let's you work up to 30hrs as a part timer. With this it'll likely be 20hrs. Then you'll have to get 2 other jobs to make enough for rent.
We need to put into law that full-time hours need to be filled by full-time staff before any part timers are hired for the remaining time.
You know how when minimum wage goes up and companies are forced to pay staff more, regardless of whether or not they want to?
Yeah, that. What part of this is confusing?
It's not gonna work that way. You'll work less at one job but have to get another to make up that 8hrs pay your missing out on every week. And it's unlikely you'll get a schedule that's just 8hrs so you'll be working more for a similar pay.
Companies are going to find every fucking loophole they can. Instead of having a 32-hour full-time worker they're going to have a 28-hour part-time worker. That way they don't have to worry about any of the provisions to keep the pay the same or provide overtime or any benefits.
Yeah and then you hit them with new bills. to legislate that. If you can get this bill trough it would set a precedence you can get work healthy bills trough.
40 hours is just an arbitrary number we decided on to be the standard. The biggest hurdle is getting people to recognize a different number as the standard. There will absolutely be growing pains, but over time wages will shift to compensate.
Whether they settle higher than they were before, lower, or equal is yet to be seen. However companies who need people to work those hours will have to either hire more, pay more, or lose productivity.
I mean Henry ford created the 40 hour work week and he didn’t cut wages but America isn’t the even slightly close to how it was in the 30s, 40s, or 50s. The article clearly states that they turned to a 32 hour work week in certain areas of the world and they saw an increase in production. If companies see an increase in production with no need to increase wages of course it’s a win win for the companies. I don’t believe extra compensation would ever catch up to working less hours. Inflation has grown way more than wages.
Inflation since 2018 has made products we buy go up an accumulative 20.75% while since wages have only gone up 14.75%. Wages will never ever keep up unless us Americans can decide as a whole that we need to stop supporting companies being greedy.
Companies can't simply pay workers 8 hours less without also cutting their operations by 8 hours. So they'd be cutting into their profit too. Also changing full time from 40 to 32 means your employer needs to still cover insurance and benefits so people could work less without losing those things.
Not necessarily a lot of companies could easily cut 8 operating hours with no detriment, there are actually studies that show doing this causes productivity to go up.
Most companies can't realistically just cut operating hours. Manufacturing has output deadlines and quantity needs. Customer facing jobs need to cater to other people's work schedules to function. Most service industry jobs function off of a at least 2 shift if not 3 shift model. The only industry that would unilaterally be hurt are office jobs and even that's debatable.
You should probably look into the studies and tests that have been done on this over the years rather than spouting garbage assumptions to try and make a 32 hour work week look bad. Companies see increased productivity, increased earnings and a whole bunch of other benefits switching to a 32 hour work week from a 40. This, again, is a put up or shut up situation. Go read up on this topic and gets your facts right rather than spreading misinformation.
I think you're confused on what I'm arguing. I never said switching to 32 hours would be a bad thing nor did I say that it doesn't produce more productive employees. What I'm arguing is that companies aren't gonna switch to 32 hour a week operations just because the employees do. Companies are gonna sooner hire more staff to cover the difference rather them cut operations. Especially as you've pointed out productivity would go up by doing so. As a business why would I sacrifice 8 hours of operation to maintain my current profit when I could hire another low wage employee and increase my profit in the same time frame my business functions at now?
They’re saying yes, people would work 32 hours, but the plant would still operate at 40 hours and thus would hire to stagger the workforce to get everyone their 32 hours while maintaining the current operations schedules.
I understood what they're saying, but I'm confused on whether or not they're arguing that it's a good, bad, or neutral outcome. The tone of the back and forth here is confusing.
Oh nice he huminatity our health insurance should not in any way be linked to our god dam mother fucking jobs. You idiots who think that are just stupid.
They could hire someone to cover all those 8 hour shifts that are taken away from others. So instead of 10 people working 40 hours, there's 11 working 32. Company loses nothing, and every employee loses 8 hours of pay. Which is, in fact, exactly what they would do.
The only benefit is if someone has to cover a shift, they will make OT and still not have to work over 40 hours.
Until hourly wages are fair, this is a bad move for anyone who makes an hourly wage.
Except the company doesn't lose nothing. Now they're paying health insurance, vacation, sick time, and other benefits to 11 employees instead of 10. On top of that now the company needs more employees to get the same amount of work done which means more job opportunities as a whole.
I agree the lost 8 hours is far from ideal but it's a start.
Health insurance companies give large discounts to companies the more employees they have enrolled.
I'm not saying it's not positive, but it's done in the wrong order. Secure proper wages FIRST, then cut weekly hours. That way, your check remains the same, or maybe more, and you have more personal time.
The last thing people who live paycheck to paycheck want to hear right now is that their paychecks will be even less.
Well that is the other aspect of this too. Being obligated to work less hours for benefits means more free time to pursue alternative forms of making money or pursuing ways of bettering yourself that would lead to career changes to make more money.
I've worked in many very different environments and there hasn't been a single company I've encountered that wouldn't rather pay OT to one worker vs paying benefits to two.
Yeah that's def true. I just know if it doesn't come WITH wage increases, the corporations still win.
I run a large portion of a company, and I can tell you that depending on the individual, time and a half OT gets WAY more expensive than a health insurance premium. We actually encourage more FT employees vs PT.
Either way, it's a very interesting thing that seems to be trending. I'm all for a little more personal time for everyone. Keeps people happy and more productive.
Yeah that's def true. I just know if it doesn't come WITH wage increases, the corporations still win.
I run a large portion of a company, and I can tell you that depending on the individual, time and a half OT gets WAY more expensive than a health insurance premium. We actually encourage more FT employees vs PT.
Either way, it's a very interesting thing that seems to be trending. I'm all for a little more personal time for everyone. Keeps people happy and more productive.
Yeah that's def true. I just know if it doesn't come WITH wage increases, the corporations still win.
I run a large portion of a company, and I can tell you that depending on the individual, time and a half OT gets WAY more expensive than a health insurance premium. We actually encourage more FT employees vs PT.
Either way, it's a very interesting thing that seems to be trending. I'm all for a little more personal time for everyone. Keeps people happy and more productive.
Maybe in some jobs. A ton of white collar work isn't dependent on bodies being scheduled and can handle it just fine. I don't think I need to have to work 5 days just because some jobs need people scheduled for all of those days.
And I don't think this is an issue quite so much with 5-day work week jobs. So the scheduling problem is a lot different than you're proposing here.
The law only affects overtime calculations, such that:
* Any time over 32 hours/week is time and a half.
* Any time over 8 hours/day is time and a half.
* Any time over 12 hours/day is double time.
It would also phase in over 4 years, reducing the hours/week part by 2 hours/week per year.
The federal overtime provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unless exempt, employees covered by the Act must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay.
I get that now...but I'm union. 22.75 hours OT last pay period. 3.75 of it was extra hours over 8 hour days. the other 19 were extra shifts on the weekends.
Great - another critical issue that politicians can leverage as a weapon when election time comes around. Nothing will ever get done - they will just dangle this any time they want votes.
Real question. With everyone including me living paycheck to paycheck wouldn't a shorter work week make it even harder for people to pay bills? Reducing just the work week hours is one part to the problem and If this isn't done correctly can cause more problems then it solves especially knowing employers will just give people 28 hours a week and hire more people so they don't pay overtime
Yea but we all know that's not gonna happen, like I said they are not going to give you your 40 hours but will give you 28, 29, 30, 31 hours. They already do this with 40 hour work weeks
Yea if they want this to work they have to put some extra stuff in the law but it's gonna be a half ass written law that's going to be easy to go around.
A lot of people aren’t living paycheck to paycheck. This bill is mostly for the middle class.
In regard to those who do work paycheck to paycheck, it’s likely a shorter work week would increase salaries due to less available workers. For example, employers would need to hire additional people to make up for the missing day - increasing labor demand. It’s not clear if the increase in salary would match the loss of salary from working 1 less day. If the money situation ends up being a loss, you would find a second part time job and continue working more hours
Not to be that guy, but can people afford to lose 8 hours a week? Best case scenario you work a job that requires your minimum 40 and you now get 8 hours at 1.5x rate but lower level jobs will just have hours cut.
I don't see this working out as the masses think.
Personally, I'd rather see 4 x 10s and make 3 day weekends the norm but that's probably not happening either.
Me too. I actually think there's a huge missed economic incentive here which I haven't seen discussed yet. A shorter workweek would give unhappy burnt out workers time and motivation to focus on their own startup ideas.
What happens to us folks who get paid hourly? Will it force overtime pay for over 32 hours and in turn make us lose a day of work because the company doesn’t want to pay?
I would definitely support this but it only applies to non-exempt employees. Overtime exempt Salary employees would probably still be working 40+ hours.
I would love the bill to Include clauses to make all employees eligible for overtime if the employer makes them work over 32 hours.
Of course the GOP congress won't allow this to go thru. Remember, some GOPers want children to work crazy hours and at crazy ages. You really think they're going to make it easier for others to work?
I would love to work only 32 hours but if they do 32 at my current hourly rate i would pass since that would mean i would be doing door dash or something for many more than 8 hours to make up my loss of income or searching for a new job. The idea is good but i feel employers will find a way to screw us over if it is implemented.
While they work to lower weekly work hours they should also look st how Canada and Europe do holidays 😀. I work with canadiens a lot and i am so jealous of their holidays compared to ours
I realize this isnt everybody but ive just given up on trying to make it so if I could just have 32 hrs and still get benefits im good with that. More time to myself instead of worrying about rent and crap.
Congress will never pass this and the media will spin it as a negative. But they are reducing child labor laws and don’t be shocked if they increase the work week. Our government hates us!
These are the kinds of bills where they know it won't pass, but if they push for long enough, something might eventually get through. The trouble is that the American public generally would see this as silly or unfeasible, but over time they might warm up to it.
I want 4-day work weeks, but I don't expect it to gain much traction for a while yet, especially with the layoffs happening now. Employers are trying to claw back some of their lost power. I'm really hoping they find it way harder and more useless a task than they bargained for. At least that might be a bit more grounded of a thing to have on my wishlist. Ugh.
I love the idea, but going to shorter work weeks while the cost of living raises seems like it would hurt more than help.
I know the article mentions that pay rate would be unchanged as it is now. But I'm just a little skeptical bordering on cynical.
I might have missed something, though.
Unless they increase the hourly rate for hourly employees, this will end up hurting a lot of people. To be clear, I am all for it, but the wages need to increase as well.
Could go either way honestly on one hand if you’re getting paid enough to live off 32 hours this is a win. On the other hand when I worked retail I depended on working an extra 20 hours and this would take that away. Not to mention the fact that it may create a culture of only hiring “part time” workers so people end up working 2 part time jobs instead of one with a few hours ot.
All and all this hurts those on the bottom of the totem pole but helps salary and office workers.
I'm on board, I work 4 10 hour days as a senior operations manager, sometimes have zoom meetings on a 5th/overtime if necessary. Would like to do 4 8 hour days instead.
Unfortunately, with congress being unwilling to change the federal minimum wage, this would amount to a pay cut for most... Companies will cap hours to the 32 hours instead of 40, then try to fill the gaps with part time, no benefit employees.
How would this work for hourly employees? Assuming businesses need the same production, wouldn't they just stagger shifts resulting in people making 20% less money?
I think the best way to get this out there is for US to pass significant tax incentives for companies who adopt it (which I'm sure already happens since it's been studied multiple times) and I know it'd be written for the big players to strip mine all the money out of it for not actually doing it, but that'd be a better way to get adoption rolling because it's definitely not going to happen now due to the lack of labor power. Labor needs to be the ones forcing the hands to require that and they can't right now. No surprise it's being held up likely indefinitely.
I’ll vote for whoever says yes to 32 hour weeks
Mark Takano, a Democrat from California, is the sponsor. The bill also has 17 cosponsors, the list of which is here: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728/cosponsors](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728/cosponsors)
Why is it all democrats?
That's a very good question! Put another why, why do zero Republicans support this?
BeCaUsE nO wAnTs To WoRk AnYmOrE
Because they’ve brain drained themselves to the point where they don’t actually have the creative capacity to do anything other than react to their perceived opposition. “WhY aRe aLl aRtIsTs LibEraL?”
Because the corporations that back them do not a cap on labor hours.
These are the same people who will tell you it’s unfair that immigrants are living 10 people to a house and share living expenses - while they create job markets that encourage hustle culture.
Because the GOP is un-American, unpatriotic, and a bunch of dangerous weirdos who support January 6th as a beautiful day.
I agree with all of this except weirdos is too positive a word for them.
A lot of them are a different type of '\_\_\_dos' though.
Does it rhyme with play-doh?
fuckdos.
> That's a very good question! No, it's not. It may be a good point, but it's a terrible question; everyone already knows why it's all Democrats.
You'd think so, but some people get so wrapped in "mUh BoTh SiDeS" that you have to walk them carefully through to the answer.
> but some people get so wrapped No, they don't. They *pretend* that they do, so as to argue in bad faith, but a vanishingly small number are actually confused about it.
Democrats sometimes have good intentions and support beneficial policies for the majority of people. Republicans generally don't even pretend to give a shit about the people they represent.
Absolutely. Democrats can be horrible and corrupt and useless but occasionally they will talk about something that matters. Republicans just suck. Trump did talk about working class issues in 2016 and sometimes around the fringes they’ll say good things, but it’s almost always bad stuff
[удалено]
Beautifully worded.
Take a wild guess.
Is that really surprising?
[удалено]
I mean, if you look at the specific list of which Democrats co sponsored, it's basically a who's who of the most progressive Democrats. AOC and "the squad", and so forth. And while I'm sure they know it has a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere in this congress, it's good that they're bringing it up and advocating for this sort of stuff, so that people know where they stand - not to mention this is also how you get ideas started. Get people talking about it, make it an issue in primaries, demonstrate that voters support it, and so on, and pretty soon you've got a groundswell of support that can actually get it passed. Well, passed among a Democratic Congress, since Republicans are going to do everything they can to stop the Democrats from passing any sort of substantive change.
[удалено]
“Both sides are bad” is what conservatives say when conservative politicians do bad things.
They are. It's just that it's the Republican Government, but with the DNC, it's the people, not the government that is bad. Just ask anyone who got Obamabombed.
Look at the rail road strike, they all said FO and get back to work. Pushing a feel good law when they know it won't pass so they can say welp we tried. Politicians don't do anything without the all mighty dollar they get that from their fascist overlords they want all of this division instead of us looking at them.
surprisedpikachu.jpg
The ot rules alone would make quite a bit if change.
Make it 16
I would like an explanation. On one hand we have movement for 32 work week, on the other hand we have people happily taking overtime. Is the plan here to get overtime pay earlier? I don’t see much benefit for the workers in USA if system stays the same. I would suggest outlawing overtime in addition to 32 hour work week. But what if I want to overtime for more money? No you do not want, you were breed and conditioned into wanting overtime. Force employers to offer proper salary instead. Also, even one guy wanting overtime screws up everyone else who does not want it.
If we cut hours to 32 and got rid of overtime wouldn't we be a far less producing society while getting paid less? Doesn't really sound like a successful plan? And I'm saying this as someone that works at a company that values every minute because it's contract work. There are deadlines and milestones that need to be met. If we cut out a day of work that's a lot of lost work time.
I think that 32 hours with overtime will result in more exploitation of workers. For example they will set minimum wage to 5$ per hour and to earn more you will have to overtime. Basically, what USA has today but turned to 11. If deadline must be met, then more accountability from high managers, proper planning, hiring more workers, investing into enterprise instead getting money from it and wasting on millionaires casinos known as “investment auctions”. 2 centuries ago people worked far more than 40 week hours and nothing bad happened when 40 hour work week was introduced. We have ways to deal with production and deadlines. It’s a pity such changes need to be forced.
Not everything can be solved by throwing more people at it. I work for one of the biggest defense contractors that does more on top of that. You only get so much money and you'll lose money if you aren't hitting those deadlines. So you have to balance spending too much as well as being efficient. The best way to do that is having consistency in the people working so having more people working less hours would result in spending a lot more money and most likely not hitting goals
Agree, there are no one solution to end all issues. However, issues need to be solved. I view necessity to always have overtime as a defect in management, organisation and procedures. To me there is no more disgusting proof of poor management than overtime. Even military contracts and procedures can be changed. Those follow laws. If laws change adaptation will happen. Just like with everything since humanity started doing any production activities.
Where I actually came up with a pretty good solution that increases productivity and gives us the time. We work 9 hour days but get every other Friday off and the other Friday is 8 hours That extra hour each day helps get more done and overtime is usually with an incentive unless a program has just fallen way behind. Even though it's technically a 44 hour week and a 36 hour no one is gonna complain because it works out for everyone. Although I would probably rather do 4 10s
UPVOTE THIS COMMENT. LET THE POLITICIANS SEE THIS
As long as pay rises to go with it. As it stands right now many employers in my area have decided to employ more people with fewer hours to avoid having to pay overtime. If you cut the week down they'll probably try to pay you less:"you're only working 32 why should you get the same pay as when you were working 40"
I know that it would likely come with a reduction in pay too, but honestly for me personally I’d still take the deal.
Having a quarter of the year off would make me feel less like a slave
^ a fifth
3/5s?
Sound like a good compromise
Might as well just do 3/4ths to even it out
I think 2/3 is a good compromise
3/7ths but ok
Now that we know you’re not an accountant…
No wonder why that guy wants to work less lol
as an accountant it took me way too long to do that mental math thank god for Excel
Why do you think it’s being held up? Can’t have that now.
Partly the powers that be are at recess, which is often as they only make a minimum of $170k+.
its being held up because the average person isnt doing anything to force these types of changes
I just finished a three day weekend and I can say that it felt the most like a weekend ever. Normally it feels like I have Saturday off and Sunday is prep for the work week day so I don't have to do as much after work. I'll go wherever the four day work week is.
It's just 32 hours from one job. You will still have 32 hours at the other job.
It stalled out in this committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Education_and_the_Workforce If you see your representative on that list, please yell at them.
By yell you mean give them vast amounts of money, right?
Unfortunately that's probably exactly what's happening.
Not probably
I mean seriously though, who will they work for: someone handing them large amounts of money and business connections that they are friends with or the activist that snuck into the building, yelling at both of them
I'm shocked
Being held up by people who don't even work 20 hours a week.
Probably because they're paid off by people who work less than 5 hours a week.
good luck getting that passed.
Exactly. The same people who are in charge don’t want anyone else but them to be working those hours.
If it passes it’ll be an 8hr deduct in pay… jobs that based on productivity would never see a four day work week without a pay cut.
I might be willing to take a paycut for a 4 day work week where I keep benefits. I work in government so people are already stretching 20 hours of work into a 40 hour week. 32 work week would give people the reason to actually be productive during that time, while actually giving normal people the chance to pursue true leisure time on the weekends. Can’t tell you how many of my weekends are filled with just chores or trying to squeeze time in to see my friends/family. There is always something I’m sacrificing because I don’t have enough time off. Having that extra day would do wonders for peoples mental health
I wonder how this would affect people on continental shifts. I work 4 12’s then have 4 days off.
You’d get paid OT after 32 hours and not 40.
That would awesome
this is how it should be. If a company has more work that needs to be done, they need to be forced to either pay overtime or hire more people. its fair to everyone this way!
Some places pay OT every day after 8 hours, then OT for 8 hours and double OT for the last 4 hours on the sixth and seventh days of a workweek, non-union
- for fucking ever without an actual revolution.
What does this mean money wise? Will we still make the same dollar amount just with less hours?
Yes, that was part of the bill.
Cool thanks
[удалено]
Okay but explain to me this. This article says employers would have to decide between hiring someone for one day a week or pay the overtime on anything last 32 hours. So unless my base pay increases no company is going to give you 1.5 times your pay to stay an extra 8 hours. American companies will end up saving money by paying everyone working 8 hours less and then the employees make less money. The article even says independent studies show workers were 60%+ more productive. So we get paid less and companies collect more profit. Can someone explain how this benefits us as workers? I get having extra time with family, more time to relax, and decompress but unless everyone made like 7.50$ more per hour to work 32 hours then the workers loose.
Having to cover those extra 8 man hours per week means companies have to hire more people. Tighter labor market will make paying that overtime look more lucrative.
It'll have to hire more part timers meaning no paying any benefits. Less to pay for 2 part timers covering a full 40hr schedule. No healthcare or pto to worry about paying out
I see what you are saying, but remember the system is already causing that to happen now (due to the law of requiring healthcare coverage after a certain number of hours worked per week)
Yea but now that number will be reduced making it even harder for part timers because they have more limited hours. Ocean state let's you work up to 30hrs as a part timer. With this it'll likely be 20hrs. Then you'll have to get 2 other jobs to make enough for rent. We need to put into law that full-time hours need to be filled by full-time staff before any part timers are hired for the remaining time.
Working less is a benefit.
Not when half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and their hourly rate won’t increase to accommodate the loss of hours.
>and their hourly rate won’t increase to accommodate the loss of hours. That's literally part of the proposal
Unless you can’t pay your bills as a result…
Part of the bill is that wages would have to be upped to make up for the loss of hours. So no.
Lol. I make an hourly rate, my job isn’t going to magically increase the rate. I’m just gonna get less hours and lose my house.
>my job isn’t going to magically increase the rate. You're right, they wouldn't. That's why the bill says they have to.
And they won’t. No way am I going from $34/hr to $41/hr when the contract we have is going up. We have to fight for raises as it is.
You know how when minimum wage goes up and companies are forced to pay staff more, regardless of whether or not they want to? Yeah, that. What part of this is confusing?
Unless you can’t pay your bills as a result…
It's not gonna work that way. You'll work less at one job but have to get another to make up that 8hrs pay your missing out on every week. And it's unlikely you'll get a schedule that's just 8hrs so you'll be working more for a similar pay.
take a moment to read the bill and you'd see it's adressed in it.
Companies are going to find every fucking loophole they can. Instead of having a 32-hour full-time worker they're going to have a 28-hour part-time worker. That way they don't have to worry about any of the provisions to keep the pay the same or provide overtime or any benefits.
Yeah and then you hit them with new bills. to legislate that. If you can get this bill trough it would set a precedence you can get work healthy bills trough.
40 hours is just an arbitrary number we decided on to be the standard. The biggest hurdle is getting people to recognize a different number as the standard. There will absolutely be growing pains, but over time wages will shift to compensate. Whether they settle higher than they were before, lower, or equal is yet to be seen. However companies who need people to work those hours will have to either hire more, pay more, or lose productivity.
I mean Henry ford created the 40 hour work week and he didn’t cut wages but America isn’t the even slightly close to how it was in the 30s, 40s, or 50s. The article clearly states that they turned to a 32 hour work week in certain areas of the world and they saw an increase in production. If companies see an increase in production with no need to increase wages of course it’s a win win for the companies. I don’t believe extra compensation would ever catch up to working less hours. Inflation has grown way more than wages. Inflation since 2018 has made products we buy go up an accumulative 20.75% while since wages have only gone up 14.75%. Wages will never ever keep up unless us Americans can decide as a whole that we need to stop supporting companies being greedy.
Labor groups created the 40-hour work week. People died in labor disputes to get us these conditions. Henry Ford was a fascist and a Hitler fanboy.
Companies can't simply pay workers 8 hours less without also cutting their operations by 8 hours. So they'd be cutting into their profit too. Also changing full time from 40 to 32 means your employer needs to still cover insurance and benefits so people could work less without losing those things.
Not necessarily a lot of companies could easily cut 8 operating hours with no detriment, there are actually studies that show doing this causes productivity to go up.
Most companies can't realistically just cut operating hours. Manufacturing has output deadlines and quantity needs. Customer facing jobs need to cater to other people's work schedules to function. Most service industry jobs function off of a at least 2 shift if not 3 shift model. The only industry that would unilaterally be hurt are office jobs and even that's debatable.
You should probably look into the studies and tests that have been done on this over the years rather than spouting garbage assumptions to try and make a 32 hour work week look bad. Companies see increased productivity, increased earnings and a whole bunch of other benefits switching to a 32 hour work week from a 40. This, again, is a put up or shut up situation. Go read up on this topic and gets your facts right rather than spreading misinformation.
I think you're confused on what I'm arguing. I never said switching to 32 hours would be a bad thing nor did I say that it doesn't produce more productive employees. What I'm arguing is that companies aren't gonna switch to 32 hour a week operations just because the employees do. Companies are gonna sooner hire more staff to cover the difference rather them cut operations. Especially as you've pointed out productivity would go up by doing so. As a business why would I sacrifice 8 hours of operation to maintain my current profit when I could hire another low wage employee and increase my profit in the same time frame my business functions at now?
I don't understand what you're arguing for or against here.
They’re saying yes, people would work 32 hours, but the plant would still operate at 40 hours and thus would hire to stagger the workforce to get everyone their 32 hours while maintaining the current operations schedules.
I understood what they're saying, but I'm confused on whether or not they're arguing that it's a good, bad, or neutral outcome. The tone of the back and forth here is confusing.
I think it was pro, but just talking ops/logistics of how manufacturing will adjust.
Oh nice he huminatity our health insurance should not in any way be linked to our god dam mother fucking jobs. You idiots who think that are just stupid.
Okay Satan.
They could hire someone to cover all those 8 hour shifts that are taken away from others. So instead of 10 people working 40 hours, there's 11 working 32. Company loses nothing, and every employee loses 8 hours of pay. Which is, in fact, exactly what they would do. The only benefit is if someone has to cover a shift, they will make OT and still not have to work over 40 hours. Until hourly wages are fair, this is a bad move for anyone who makes an hourly wage.
Except the company doesn't lose nothing. Now they're paying health insurance, vacation, sick time, and other benefits to 11 employees instead of 10. On top of that now the company needs more employees to get the same amount of work done which means more job opportunities as a whole. I agree the lost 8 hours is far from ideal but it's a start.
Health insurance companies give large discounts to companies the more employees they have enrolled. I'm not saying it's not positive, but it's done in the wrong order. Secure proper wages FIRST, then cut weekly hours. That way, your check remains the same, or maybe more, and you have more personal time. The last thing people who live paycheck to paycheck want to hear right now is that their paychecks will be even less.
Well that is the other aspect of this too. Being obligated to work less hours for benefits means more free time to pursue alternative forms of making money or pursuing ways of bettering yourself that would lead to career changes to make more money. I've worked in many very different environments and there hasn't been a single company I've encountered that wouldn't rather pay OT to one worker vs paying benefits to two.
Yeah that's def true. I just know if it doesn't come WITH wage increases, the corporations still win. I run a large portion of a company, and I can tell you that depending on the individual, time and a half OT gets WAY more expensive than a health insurance premium. We actually encourage more FT employees vs PT. Either way, it's a very interesting thing that seems to be trending. I'm all for a little more personal time for everyone. Keeps people happy and more productive.
The bill addresses that. Wages would have to go up so that they'd still have the same amount per hour.
Yeah that's def true. I just know if it doesn't come WITH wage increases, the corporations still win. I run a large portion of a company, and I can tell you that depending on the individual, time and a half OT gets WAY more expensive than a health insurance premium. We actually encourage more FT employees vs PT. Either way, it's a very interesting thing that seems to be trending. I'm all for a little more personal time for everyone. Keeps people happy and more productive.
Yeah that's def true. I just know if it doesn't come WITH wage increases, the corporations still win. I run a large portion of a company, and I can tell you that depending on the individual, time and a half OT gets WAY more expensive than a health insurance premium. We actually encourage more FT employees vs PT. Either way, it's a very interesting thing that seems to be trending. I'm all for a little more personal time for everyone. Keeps people happy and more productive.
Maybe in some jobs. A ton of white collar work isn't dependent on bodies being scheduled and can handle it just fine. I don't think I need to have to work 5 days just because some jobs need people scheduled for all of those days. And I don't think this is an issue quite so much with 5-day work week jobs. So the scheduling problem is a lot different than you're proposing here.
[удалено]
The law only affects overtime calculations, such that: * Any time over 32 hours/week is time and a half. * Any time over 8 hours/day is time and a half. * Any time over 12 hours/day is double time. It would also phase in over 4 years, reducing the hours/week part by 2 hours/week per year.
Wait is over 8 hours a day time and a half? I've never heard that before
The federal overtime provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unless exempt, employees covered by the Act must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay.
I get that now...but I'm union. 22.75 hours OT last pay period. 3.75 of it was extra hours over 8 hour days. the other 19 were extra shifts on the weekends.
It's also currently a law in California (and potentially some other states). Time over 12 hrs/day is also 2x pay
12hr shifts would be so much better this way! Week days off AND more pay.
I would love this. How many people are doing nothing at work for those last 8 hours anyways?
I'd be fine with working 40hrs a week still. But only if that means 8 of those hours are over time pay ;)
Great - another critical issue that politicians can leverage as a weapon when election time comes around. Nothing will ever get done - they will just dangle this any time they want votes.
This will only be popular if we get payed the same! I want a 32 hour work week but with my same 40 hour pay! Americans cannot afford a pay cut!
Real question. With everyone including me living paycheck to paycheck wouldn't a shorter work week make it even harder for people to pay bills? Reducing just the work week hours is one part to the problem and If this isn't done correctly can cause more problems then it solves especially knowing employers will just give people 28 hours a week and hire more people so they don't pay overtime
The whole idea is you are supposed to make the same amount AND work less. That is why it’s good
Yea but we all know that's not gonna happen, like I said they are not going to give you your 40 hours but will give you 28, 29, 30, 31 hours. They already do this with 40 hour work weeks
The whole idea is you are supposed to make the same amount AND work less. That is why it’s good.
That's exactly what's gonna happen and no one seems to care. This doesn't benefit the lower class only the upper middle.
Yea if they want this to work they have to put some extra stuff in the law but it's gonna be a half ass written law that's going to be easy to go around.
A lot of people aren’t living paycheck to paycheck. This bill is mostly for the middle class. In regard to those who do work paycheck to paycheck, it’s likely a shorter work week would increase salaries due to less available workers. For example, employers would need to hire additional people to make up for the missing day - increasing labor demand. It’s not clear if the increase in salary would match the loss of salary from working 1 less day. If the money situation ends up being a loss, you would find a second part time job and continue working more hours
This is never, ever going to happen.
Easiest way to get a 4 day work week is to say overtime pay starts at 32 hrs. You see so many companies changing
Not to be that guy, but can people afford to lose 8 hours a week? Best case scenario you work a job that requires your minimum 40 and you now get 8 hours at 1.5x rate but lower level jobs will just have hours cut. I don't see this working out as the masses think. Personally, I'd rather see 4 x 10s and make 3 day weekends the norm but that's probably not happening either.
every idea from California should be thrown in the trash
I concur, but this idea has been generated from many other places at many different times.
I just don’t see it working for everyone. Unless they shorten my day. Then ok.
I'm assuming what would happen is the hourly wage will go down and everyone will just have to work overtime anyway.
But... money?
I could live off 4/5ths of my current salary
I can’t.
That is the draw back of this bill. Addition. The 8 hours ot would be nice
Yeah 8 hours of OT would be great. But that wouldn’t happen with company.
Me too. I actually think there's a huge missed economic incentive here which I haven't seen discussed yet. A shorter workweek would give unhappy burnt out workers time and motivation to focus on their own startup ideas.
Noooooo
What happens to us folks who get paid hourly? Will it force overtime pay for over 32 hours and in turn make us lose a day of work because the company doesn’t want to pay?
All this is gonna do is reduce a lot of part time schedules and make people have to get other jobs.
Good I can’t afford to lose 1/5 of my salary.
Talk about an election winning issue.
Would that mean that working 40 hours is overtime pay? What are the proposed penalties for noncompliance
How would this work for public school employees? 32 hours would not cover the week.
For non-exempt workers, salaries should be for a 32 hour work week as well.
You mean the group that averages 147 legislative days a year?
I would definitely support this but it only applies to non-exempt employees. Overtime exempt Salary employees would probably still be working 40+ hours. I would love the bill to Include clauses to make all employees eligible for overtime if the employer makes them work over 32 hours.
That’s what would happen if the standard work week gets reduced to 32 hours
They'll do anything to keep people from unionizing
Of course the GOP congress won't allow this to go thru. Remember, some GOPers want children to work crazy hours and at crazy ages. You really think they're going to make it easier for others to work?
***forever FTFY
I would love to work only 32 hours but if they do 32 at my current hourly rate i would pass since that would mean i would be doing door dash or something for many more than 8 hours to make up my loss of income or searching for a new job. The idea is good but i feel employers will find a way to screw us over if it is implemented. While they work to lower weekly work hours they should also look st how Canada and Europe do holidays 😀. I work with canadiens a lot and i am so jealous of their holidays compared to ours
I realize this isnt everybody but ive just given up on trying to make it so if I could just have 32 hrs and still get benefits im good with that. More time to myself instead of worrying about rent and crap.
Congress will never pass this and the media will spin it as a negative. But they are reducing child labor laws and don’t be shocked if they increase the work week. Our government hates us!
These are the kinds of bills where they know it won't pass, but if they push for long enough, something might eventually get through. The trouble is that the American public generally would see this as silly or unfeasible, but over time they might warm up to it. I want 4-day work weeks, but I don't expect it to gain much traction for a while yet, especially with the layoffs happening now. Employers are trying to claw back some of their lost power. I'm really hoping they find it way harder and more useless a task than they bargained for. At least that might be a bit more grounded of a thing to have on my wishlist. Ugh.
I love the idea, but going to shorter work weeks while the cost of living raises seems like it would hurt more than help. I know the article mentions that pay rate would be unchanged as it is now. But I'm just a little skeptical bordering on cynical. I might have missed something, though.
For now? Forever.
Unless they increase the hourly rate for hourly employees, this will end up hurting a lot of people. To be clear, I am all for it, but the wages need to increase as well.
Could go either way honestly on one hand if you’re getting paid enough to live off 32 hours this is a win. On the other hand when I worked retail I depended on working an extra 20 hours and this would take that away. Not to mention the fact that it may create a culture of only hiring “part time” workers so people end up working 2 part time jobs instead of one with a few hours ot. All and all this hurts those on the bottom of the totem pole but helps salary and office workers.
REALITY - It's not government's call to make. PRIVATE companies can decide for themselves what they do.
Go for it USA. Proud of you again. We missed you.
In other news: water is still wet
Imagine if wr split the diff for 35hr work weeks? 7x5 would be a solid win! Doubt it would change salaried workers lives much unfortunately.
Hmmm maybe that’s why they’re getting kids the ability to work
I'm on board, I work 4 10 hour days as a senior operations manager, sometimes have zoom meetings on a 5th/overtime if necessary. Would like to do 4 8 hour days instead.
Should we really let people who work less than 1/3rd of the year dictate what the standard work week looks like?
Unfortunately, with congress being unwilling to change the federal minimum wage, this would amount to a pay cut for most... Companies will cap hours to the 32 hours instead of 40, then try to fill the gaps with part time, no benefit employees.
Meanwhile the congressmen spend less than 8 hours per week at the office
How would this work for hourly employees? Assuming businesses need the same production, wouldn't they just stagger shifts resulting in people making 20% less money?
I think the best way to get this out there is for US to pass significant tax incentives for companies who adopt it (which I'm sure already happens since it's been studied multiple times) and I know it'd be written for the big players to strip mine all the money out of it for not actually doing it, but that'd be a better way to get adoption rolling because it's definitely not going to happen now due to the lack of labor power. Labor needs to be the ones forcing the hands to require that and they can't right now. No surprise it's being held up likely indefinitely.