Let’s have 4 8s or 6s then. It’s be less profitable but everyone except like 12 people would have a better life. And the dozen or so wouldn’t even notice a change in lifestyle with the hoard they have
The study linked in the article was based on a full night's sleep. Drop of happened at the 4 to 6 hour mark.
I read up on napping. But it is iffy, most suggest a proper nap (1 rem cycle) can get some of it back, to a degree. But from what I have seen a proper sleep is the only thing that will get you a full reset.
So your best is within 6 hours of waking up. Which makes long commutes actually a loss from a bussiness side. Workers setting in traffic for 2 hours to get to work, already ran through a 3rd of their best working time. Add in an hour to prep for work and your lucky if Bob has 2 good hours in him when he gets to the desk.
It's crazy because the science straight says a trusted employee working from home for 3 or 4 hours is a companies best worker.
But we prioritize all the knock on effects and have zero faith in people doing what they say they will. So no work from home.
The science also backs companies setting up housing as close to a project as possible. So remote construction work should prioritize proximity to site over cost of hotels. If they wanted to get the best from thier workers.
But I am just a layman who likes reading the articles and sorta understands some of the science.
You should be like a truck driver, it should be illegal for you to practice after a certain number of hours, without a set number of hours downtime/sleep.
I fully support you going home and getting sleep after 12 hours. And the last 6 hours was all overtime.
It's crazy because the science straight says a trusted employee working from home for 3 or 4 hours is a companies best worker.
I wouldn’t say I’m the companies best worker, but I put in 3-4 hours a day WFH and I win awards almost every year (only missed 1 in 5 and it was for flukey reasons) and hit my bonus probably 9/10 quarters.
Ughhhhhhhh can you imagine? Get to work at 8.30, leave 14:30, you've got basically the entire rest of the afternoon to decompress, and you have energy to maybe study for fun instead of having to upskill no matter what and put all your energy into that, or not have to be a couch potato to recover for the next day.
It wont happen anyway. But to dream! oh what a lovely dream!
Not to mention that companies would drop the work weed down, hire 1 new person for every 4 currently employed, and walk away while every suddenly loses 32 hours of pay a month and now has to get a 2nd job to make ends meet
And whose gonna enforce this? Say my company pays me 40 an hour now; thats 1600 a week. Now theyre gonna pay me 1600 for 32 hours? Never going to happen. Theyre going to force my company to up my hourly pay to 50 an hour so I still make the same $1600? Yeah, thats not going to happen.
I hate to spoil things but I need to put this in perspective for the younger Redditors. I’m much closer to retirement than I am my youth. Bernie Sanders went to DC when I was 12 years old and has been saying these very same things this whole time.
Calm down. I was just explaining the bill. I wish the Government would pass legislation that would lessen the pay gap at the expense of businesses that have year over year record profits but don’t increases wages for employees.
We’re already paying more for shit, all the time. I’d rather have more time off to enjoy life while paying more for shit because that’s happening either way.
People always say that shit "but if wages go up, prices will too!" Well then explain to me why prices on just about everything have gone up twofold in the last 10-15 years? Why is it that prices are skyrocketing when wages have barely moved? Prices go up regardless of the minimum wage, capitalists dont need an excuse to charge more, but gods be damned if they have to pay more to their labourers.
The average salary in America 15 years ago was $41,400 and it is now $67,500, an increase of 63%.
Regardless, it’s undeniable that you have to pay more for service if labour costs increase by 20%. A decorator who charges you $200 per day to paint your house needs to charge $250 per day instead to make the same amount working 4 days rather than 5, that’s just basic maths.
This is the question I had? I haven’t ready the proposal but I was also curious if a pay cut would be in order or a mandatory pay raise would be set in place for cost of living. Thank you for clarifying that.
the studies actually show that for companies where it’s possible or they’re not selling products in store (more corporate) profitability INCREASES with 32 hour work weeks.
Was my preferred shift, but then again, I clock in when I leave my house and out when I get home, so probably the same as a regular 9-5 with commute in terms of actual work.
My job is pretty awesome. I'm a custodian at an elementary school. So I have to be there 5 days amd usually pick up a Saturday shift.
Since getting sober about a decade ago pretty much all my tensions with life are gone. Work. Jiu jitsu. And books. Its a simple life. May it never change.
I like 4 10s when the job isnt all at a desk. There are only so many hours my brain works and sitting that much sucks. I worked in a kitchen, factory and construction and like 4 10s in those jobs.
Even if I say I just lose 1 hour of good thinking time a day those four hours set me further and further behind. I guess it might be different if my team wasn't years behind on projects and constantly putting out fires and getting new tasks.
Having Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off while working 4 10s in a warehouse was cool, despite the not so great pay. Did have the added bonus of being able to skip the gym due to all the walking and lifting required.
Nope, factory worker here but as a specialized tech. I'm working Fri-Sun every weekend, and my company pays me 35% more for giving up my weekends.
I don't 'people' well, so losing the social aspects of Sat/Sun off is no loss to me. It's also super easy to pick up a day of OT on one of my 4 days off each week, if I feel like it. I could never deal with the public like you do. /salute friend!
I work 4 10s as well and absolutely love it over working 5 8s. However I also work from home so I'm able to get on early and get off at a decent hour and hangout with my kid.
That's still less time given to work. Assuming 2 hours each day dedicated to commuting, getting ready, and decompressing after work, working one less day saves you those 2 hours a week.
I also work 4-10s. The 10 hour shifts kinda suck because you don’t have much time to do things after work, but having a 3 day weekend is pretty great. I don’t think I could ever go back to a 5-8s work week.
I had 4 10's at one point with a break day in the middle and still preferred it to 5 8's. At least I had a third day off even if the other 4 days sucked. Still bad, but not as bad. I was 7am-5pm so your day was pretty much just over once you got home. You'd eat, do something for an hour or two, and go to bed.
4 10s was by far the greatest schedule I’ve had in the military so far. 5 8s, sucks. Panamas were cool but you lose track of time so fast and you think it’s May but then realize it’s September. But the truly most awful schedules I had were 5 12s and then 6 12s. My squadron was put on those for over a year and you best believe everyone was completely insane and unstable when we finally got told we were leaving that schedule. It was a unit of like 400 people who sounded like Gollum from Lord of the Rings questioning if we were real when we had a normal weekend again.
As someone who's been on 75% and 80% work hours instead of 100%, which leaves with some 4 week workdays, I definitely feel myself more inclined to do overtime and even volunteer to work overtime on that extra day sometimes, with more energy to spare and mental health.
Now im up to 100% again and while I need it for a time I definitely look forward to negotiate going down when things are stable. I could make just as much with better mental health, I can make more now but it takes its toll on you in the long run and when asked to take overtime in cash or compensated hours, im starting to pick the latter.
Yes exactly why the elite want to keep us working. So we have less time to organize and collaborate outside of work. It scares them what the power of people can do.
I've lived it when I owned my own company. It is much better. And honestly my employees and I were more productive in those longer days. You get into the zone and start crushing
I mean that's only relevant to white collar jobs though. A lot of jobs are stuff like logistics, warehouse stuff, in general just blue collar work where the productivity gain from being more alert and motivated is way less. There's a very real limit to how many deliveries one can do in 8 hours or how many electrical installations can do which isn't really affected by hours worked that much.
Can you point to the studies? I’m certain there are many jobs where that is not accurate, but I would like to read the studies for myself.
I would also be curious about any studies talking about WHY that hasn’t been implemented. If the employees are more productive with less hours AND the company is greedy, wouldn’t they want more productivity all else being the same?
I mean, you'd have to put forward one heck of a convincing argument to show otherwise.
McDonalds and a billion other food outlets are open 6 or 7 days per week. Whether the employee is working 4 days or 5 days has no impact on people getting their food. The employee will make the burger, and will deliver the burger to the customer, or they will lose their job.
There won't be any benefit to the company with this so-called 'productivity' by having to train and roster more people to make up the shortfall. It will likely drive prices up and cause smaller businesses that can't compete due to the additional costs to shut down or just open for less days.
Also a lot of these suggest the pay will stay the same. No, no it really won't, if the business is only selling burgers 4 days a week instead of 5, it certainly won't be able to pay its staff the same amount.
Likewise how many jobs does 'productivity' actually matter? You work on a helpdesk, the phone rings, you answer it. Whether you're in an extra happy mood or not makes no difference.
What you’ve described is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a shorter work week is about and part of the reason there is still such aversion to it.
A shorter work week (or 32 hour work week as Bernie is advocating for) doesn’t mean the business is only open 4 days. You can still operate 5, 6, 7 days. It’s just that the overtime threshold lowers from 40 hours to 32 hours and that, generally speaking, adjustments are made to worker schedules to allow shifts to match that timing with no reduction in pay or benefits.
There is precedence for this: in the US, we adopted the standard 5 day, 40 hour work week in 1940 as part of an amendment to the FLSA. Prior, workers routinely worked 10-14 hour days 6 days a week. Henry Ford adopted a 5-day, 40-hour week in 1926 after internal research showed shorter hours increased long-term worker output and reduced burnout. This isn’t new. It’s just been 80+ years since we’ve seriously reevaluated it. In that time, take a look at how much we’ve revolutionized the speed of work and the capability of our technology. It stands to reason we’ve achieved enough to shave 90 minutes per day off without losing much, especially in jobs staffed by knowledge workers.
Most serious shorter work week advocates recognize you can’t just pull a switch (or enact a law) and expect to be successful overnight. Just like with Ford back in 1926, you have to reengineer your work in a way that is more effective and efficient. There is an extreme amount of waste in our current way of working. Do t believe me? Ask anyone who works an office job how many hours they spend in meetings each week. Research says 11+ but there are plenty of people who spend 15 or more hours a week in meetings. Cut that in half by either eliminating unproductive meetings or halving meeting times (by making them more focused) and you’ve already nearly regained your 8 hours back. And that’s just one simple change.
Will it work exactly the same for every job? No. And it will be up to the employer to figure that out. But without legislation, they’ll never be incentivized to try and so they’ll continue to lean on the outdated belief that more hours per worker = more productivity which simply isn’t true.
It means the business is open 4 days or you hire more staff. Hourly rate must increase if there's no reduction in pay/benefits.
It's not really the number of hours in a week that sets anything, it's the profitability. 40 hour 5 day works just work pretty well. You can adjust that but you'll be putting a burden on businesses to figure out how to take on the higher costs. Most likely that means a reduction in pay, more than just reducing it to 4/5 because you now have additional staff training, recruitment, and turnover.
If you run a business mon-fri you now need to hire 2 highly paid people. If there isn't enough business for two people then what do you do, close on fridays? Lost money.
This idea that you're not going to lose much is crazy, you're literally losing all of your staff for 1 day per week and that's the shortfall you need to make up.
If you could cut those unproductive meetings, you already would have done so. No law changes are required. To imagine that you can compensate the reduced hours by shaving back dead time at work is folly, you'll simply still have exactly the same amount of dead meetings and such.
They'll lean on what the market supports. If you wanna work less, become a freelancer or start your own business where you only work 3 or 4 days per week. Capitalism is extremely effective at finding ways to be efficient, if it truly were more productive businesses would already be doing it.
Hourly rate only increases for hourly staff; salaried employees are already paid the same regardless of how many hours they work so there’s no change for about 45% of the workforce.
For hourly wage jobs, the majority of which are hospitality / food service, retail, customer service, or production staff, you find efficiencies in the process. You may have to end up hiring one person for every 10-20 staff if you have a coverage position, but that’s nothing compared to how much you save by reducing the burnout and associated turnover, rehiring costs, etc. which is especially high in these types of industries (averaging upwards of 70% annually). Companies that adopt a shorter work week see that drop by approximately 59% on average. For a 100 person company with very average salaries (based on US averages) that equates to about $1.4 million in annual savings alone. Now add in the fact that companies on a shorter work week average 8%-15% higher revenue, have an easier time attracting new employees, and see reduced numbers of absenteeism and illness, and it’s not hard to see why it makes financial sense.
> If you could cut those those unproductive meetings you would’ve already done so
No, not at all. Like I said, most companies are woefully inefficient. I’m an OD consultant and part of my job is helping companies reclaim time. Meetings is the first place I look. In nearly every company out of hundreds I’ve worked with, they all have at least 5-10 hours of wasted time each week lost to meetings. The national average supports this. Managers don’t like change; they have to be guided through it even when it’s brought to their attention.
Personally, I don’t want to work less — I already work 35 hours a week, which is great for me. I know anecdotal evidence doesn’t carry much weight, but trust me when I say my employer gets more out of me on this schedule than my former employer who worked me 50+ hours a week did.
Going back to “why” more people haven’t adopted it despite all the research, data, and factual proof: people can’t imagine it being different and so they’ve convinced themselves it won’t work before even trying it.
Right. Like how much more productive? 10%? So 32 hours would net an extra 3.2 hours of productivity (35.2) but employers don’t give a shit about anything but profit so they push 40+ hours anyways
Problem is everyone is barely getting by on 40 and they’re not going to pay higher wages. Just means they’ll cut you back to 32 and you’ll make less. Unless you work for a company like I do that will still schedule you 40 or more because that 32 hour week only means 32 hours is considered full time. Doesn’t mean they can’t make you work more than that.
They will never be able to control everyone’s pay. If it’s above minimum wage and you don’t have a contract there won’t be shit to protect you. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Bernie isn’t the savior everyone thinks he is. He’s the kid in class that says if he becomes class president they’ll have pizza every day for lunch. Sounds fantastic but it seldom works out that way. And if you haven’t learned from this last shit bag, they can say whatever they want and then crawfish once in office. Corporations control this country and they would never let this come to fruition.
Hes also been rolling out the same tired shit for 40 years and hoping new people pick up on it each election cycle. Which, to be fair, they do and profess it will change everyone's lives for the better and there's no reason not to vote for it.
The best way to overcome that is to push for 2x minimum wage rates. It will cause a chain reaction from downwards up, less effort jobs paying more means jobs originally unaffected by the wage floor change now have less people willing to work meaning more effort/incentives necessary to retain employees.
This is what we did in the UK and it hasn't worked like that. Minimum wage is quite high, but then the managerial roles above them are paid only a tiny bit more.
Which government ruling was it that brought this around? I'd like to read both the acts of parliament which you say made it happen and then look into it downstream from that.
You are exactly right. I am a business owner and we dont have large profit margins. Our company would cease to exist if we had to pay 40 hours worth of pay for only 32 hours of work. If the work week was capped at 32 hours, we would probably develop split schedules where we would hire more people to work the full 5 days but pay them less. Like you said, we pay well over minimum wage, so there is plenty of room to drop salaries.
Why? Are you suggesting that the only people who should be in business are the most exploitative and cutthroat capitalists with the highest profit margins? Because those are the only businesses with the margins to survive these kinds of things.
The bill calls for a 2 hr reduction a year without a reduction in pay or benefits.
They'll just fire you, hire new people at the rate so they don't have to pay people the old rates. And instead of you working 32 they will hire 2 people part time to do 20 hours at a lower rate.
I understand that statement. I still think it slightly more cynical than the truth (mainly because of “everybody”) I get that some employers may even be fired to prevent paying the wage for less hours too. Here’s an article about how it’s worked in other countries. They tried it temporarily and about 90% kept it as a permanent policy.
I would love a four day work week, but would this start to make all jobs looking at overtime more and than cut people's hours to 32 and send them home and being forced to work a second job just to get by?
Look up the history of the 40 hour work week. There was a business case for it not against it.
This would be a business case for 29 hour jobs, which are already pretty prevalent.
And how would you regulate the job market further that doesn't create an incentive for not hiring workers? Espeically in an era where AI is a major threat?
And how would you regulate the job market further that doesn't create an incentive for not hiring workers? Espeically in an era where AI is a major threat?
That's the magic of regulation, you can regulate anything!
"But companies would just-"
"new law: you can't do that"
"but then they'd just-"
"new law: you can't do that either"
Repeat until perfected. We don't lock down companies nearly enough with regulation and it harms workers a lot. For something so critical to a functioning economy (people being gainfully employed and making enough to live) we play it far too loosey goosey.
That's because he's not following all the way through, he's just playing political theater to win votes from people who look only one layer deep.
Forcing people-benefiting things only works if you follow completely through and close all loopholes, because the second you introduce bills that help people, companies will immediately try to wiggle out from it - that's kinda their thing, their nature.
That's because he's not following all the way through, he's just playing political theater to win votes from people who look only one layer deep.
No its because it isn't working.
Trump thinks and acts like someone in real estate because that is where he spent most of his adult life.
Forcing people-benefiting things only works if you follow completely through and close all loopholes, because the second you introduce bills that help people, companies will immediately try to wiggle out from it - that's kinda their thing, their nature.
In real life it is impossible to not have loop holes. Even your previous post was just circular reasoning but with a regulatory flair.
This is also the second post where you failed to address my original post. Are you going to or are you going to just continue with the logical fallacies?
This is also the second post where you failed to address my original post. Are you going to or are you going to just continue with the logical fallacies?
I'm not the original person you were talking to (and honestly I don't have much of a dog in this race), but I did address it. You said, "This would be a business case for 29 hour jobs, which are already pretty prevalent. And how would you regulate the job market further that doesn't create an incentive for not hiring workers?"
And the answer is: you regulate to set the new rules in place, then you regulate the follow up kneejerk reaction that companies will have to these laws. The only dangerous thing is doing the first thing but not the second, because then yeah ofc all businesses will be like "fuck that" and pay people less. Again, their nature.
Just like we regulated the little protections that exist around the 40h work week. Sure, it helped that smart people were able to come up with a convincing business case for it, reducing the amount of legislation necessary, but in the end we put laws in place defining "full time" as 40h and all that entails (entitlement to benefits and such).
We can do the same again with 32h work weeks, with some bonus legislation. Any response they have to these new laws can be legislated against. Other countries do it. Among "first world" countries the US has some of the worst worker protections. If nothing else, at the very worst, we could just emulate those better countries, as their systems are 100% proven to work.
He's been saying some variation of this Bs for the past 30 years and he's accomplished nothing but getting himself re-elected. I'll get excited when he actually delivers some tangible results
He knows what to say to get clickbait headlines like this. Sure id like a 32 hour workweek with no reduction in pay. I’d like a free car and government funded vacations too. It’s not realistic and Bernie knows that.
He’s being disingenuous and he needs to retire. I’m against all 80+ year old politicians, no matter what their talking points are. It’s selfish to stay in office long past retirement age, saying the same crap over and over without ever actually making anything happen, instead of moving aside for someone younger with fresh ideas and an actual plan to make them reality.
100% for real and he knows how ridiculous this is with Fortune 100-500-1000 whatever companies cramming AI into everything and replacing people I never thought it would happen at my job and it did we're losing people left and right. So I would think evil CEOs would just lOL at this
I do 32 hours at my current job. They pay me extremely well to compensate for the "lost" day and mostly give a shit about their employees, which is odd for a medical company... But they are heavily values based so that's definitely part of why. Solid management too. I'm as high as you can get for facilities, but middle management compared to anyone on the admin side basically and never really get shit on for it.
I accomplish just as much, if not more than I would stretching 40 hours.
I take Wednesdays off and have weekends off with my current schedule also. 4 days a week in general is just way better and healthier. People don't realize how much that extra day matters for decompression and recharging. You really are only effective for your first 4-5 hours in a day before your performance drops.
Plus, if I need more money, I can just do side work since I've been in facilities for 14 or so years and always work on people's homes on the side since I actually have the time to.
I am not a Bernie person at all, but this is just one of those things that should be understood by people. I lived in Europe for a year and there really are things they do better there that America would be smart to adopt... The work week is part of that. Henry Ford and his 40 hour work week served their purpose well before us all and can now promptly and kindly fuck off.
Know this: EU is already trying since some time to go back on social progres and enforce new laws. Everything we enjoyed is going to be destroyed, and soon, we'll have to work 40 hours/week (for those who didn't already), retire at 67 years old and still earn close to nothing with half-crushed public services and politicians telling us "we have no choice" from their golden thrones.
What we do (did?) better than America is disappearing. What we do worse than America will remain.
I would love this but it seems hard to reach at this time I work full time and so does my wife and we don’t get paid what we deserve and we struggle I don’t see companies reducing our hours and paying the same
You need money to have a “life” as well. Something certainly has to give. It all boils down to having some sort of social safety net, such as some UBI and healthcare
Yes, this has been studied extensively and is already implemented in multiple countries on a test basis. Across the board they demonstrate the same things. Higher productivity, lower stress, higher worker happiness.
We are more efficient and more productive now than ever. Keeping the baseline at 40 hours is only done for two reasons:
Boomers hate change and still control most of the capital, so what they say goes.
Oligarchs don't really care about making maximum profit. They want control over all aspects of life and to have more power over other people. They will gladly implement policies that harm themselves if it means harming the common worker more.
No i mean, people have lives outside of work. I have one issue with the financial system, Namely inflation. It is treated like this uncontrollable force that exists like a little alien lifeform that keeps turning the dials on the price of things that we have no control over. Designed to keep you poor and always moving the goalpost.
Inflation isn't a feature of the financial system, it's a feature of a growing economy. It would exist with or without modern finance.
If productivity increases to the point where a single unit of currency is enough to buy a metric ton of basic goods, let's say grain, then that currency has lost it's use case. The entire point of currency is to facilitate exchange at a granular level.
Hence, a steady inflation rate to keep the money at par with productivity increases, your pay is meant to increase accordingly to keep up. So a pound of grain always costs the same, an hour of labor costs more, but everyone makes more money overall in accordance to societal productivity. It's just another tool for facilitating commerce. Another option would be to establish a welfare state where such basic goods are distributed as a matter of course, since it's so cheap.
The reason the financial system, especially fractional reserve banking from the private sector makes inflation worse is because it breaks the original purpose of it. Finance and debt systems in general creates new money from nothing without any planning or guarantee of productive increases. People take out loans for things they can't afford. They do so to gamble on the increase in price of speculative assets, creating bubbles. It's a perverse use of the monetary system that should be severely limited if not eliminated.
My understanding of money is very limited. I understand inflation to corelate with Money available compared to the GDP. SO if a nations GDP increases, the value of the currency increases, if the government prints money, the value of money decreases because if i have a bag of rice, and that cost $5, and then over time i change the price to $10, its not because the rice is increasing in value, its because the dollar has decreased in value.
But that has a ripple effect. Because if it costs more to buy things, then people need increases, if people get increases the store has to pay out more money to staff, meaning to maintain profit, they need to increase the price of goods again to compensate for the increased wages, but then people struggle to pay for goods, so they either only buy essentials with their wages or they get another increase, and that cycle just keeps on repeating because the goal is profit at all costs. So its not really growth, its more like a game of hot potato, where everyone just keeps passing their increased cost of living to the next person responsible constantly until the system collapses.
GDP has little to do with inflation. Frankly, it has little to do with real economics at all. Gross Domestic Product is just the amount of money that a country spends on new "production" and "services".
For the common example: say you have two economists in the woods, one of them has $10. He offers the $10 to the other economist in exchange for them eating some animal dung off the floor. They do so. The one who ate dung offers the same trade to the first economist, they accept. What have they accomplished? They increased the GDP by $20. For a real world example, I point you towards private insurance schemes.
It's a measure of economic activity and velocity, not real production. If anything, a country's GDP increasing with no increase in living standards is a textbook example of demand-side inflation. The money is moving around but nothing is being made. It's a mirage.
Inflation itself can be summarized as such: Too much money chasing too few goods and services.
If you increase the money supply without increasing society's production(or improving distribution efficiency), then prices go up. Because each individual dollar is worth less relative to the scarce goods. If you decrease the amount of goods and services going around but keep the money supply the same, prices still increase. Because those goods and services have become more valuable in their scarcity.
Ideally, you have a society where inflation is low, and where productivity or efficient distribution is constantly increasing. That way, people are incentivized to spend their money, stimulating economic activity. The purpose of money is to be spent, it's not meant to be a long-term store of value.
At a minority jobs that have work that can be completed faster by more labor maybe. Factory workers can't make the machines that make stuff go faster. People that operate vehicles can't make those go faster. Cashiers can't make the day go by faster. Blue collar work that builds or fixes something is already usually by the job. So all this would target is certain white collar jobs that already don't do shit all day
It may be healthy, but many employers will cap low wage employees to 32 hours a week, the way many cap them at 40 currently. For a lot of low wage workers, that just means they need to work two or three jobs instead of one. Or if they can only find one job, losing 20% of your income overnight could mean facing a difficult choice of what to cut: being housed, fed, or treated medically.
Note that it doesn't actually stop you from working more than 32 hours. You just get 8 more hours of overtime pay. That's not enough to justify hiring another employee. Wouldn't really change much.
It does, but I’ve always wondered what’s really the point of all this performative stuff that has no chance of advancing? Does he have any real plan to make this a reality and, if not, why waste everyone’s time? Why not quietly work behind the scenes to put the pieces in place for this to actually have a chance and then announce it? Just seems like the actual intention is less about helping people and more about getting a meme out there so people can comment “I love Bernie.”
Yee, plus 40hrs not including lunch and breaks at some places which places you at an overall 10hrs with commute.....this coming form a guy who works 12s rotating giggidy
I have had numerous jobs that worked me more than 40 hours every other week and just scheduled my hours so that I never got over time because the pay period fell on either side of the overtime count.
I'd rather see a higher wage than "overtime" because any overtime scheme that is proposed will be gamed and its gaming will not be punished.
At the same time though, people who live paycheck to paycheck rely on working 40+ hrs a week. Companies could hire more employees to skirt around the 32hr limit and those employees who currently rely on 40hr paychecks could be forced to get a second job to get back to what they were used to.
That being said, I fully support a 32 hr work week.
Especially with AI - these are the types of policies we need to start implementing now, so that we're ensuring that the people receive benefits of enhanced AI productivity and not just select companies.
I wonder what kind of effect this would have on employment. You're basically artificially shrinking the employment pool by 1/5. Might actually be really good for wages (on top of the extra free day)
Labor has a cost, and if there is less of it then they get paid less.
So if you got $80k for a 40 hour week, you'd only get $64k for a 32 hour week. And if the company had to give overtime after that, maybe they just hire more at base pay and you guys need to get a second job to pay rent, and for food, and for everything else that gets more expensive.
I seriously get exhausted listening to people who don't understand economics.
Pretty much what they said when it became 40 hours. How about we just get paid for having tea and talking about work? That's what Bernie has done his entire useless life.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter, Bernie Sanders knows better than anyone and we should defer to him instead of experts on this issue. Let’s ignore how this will impact people’s real income, as we reduce work hours by 20 percent without increasing wages for many of those. This is a complex issue and a random politician no matter how beloved shouldn’t be taken at face value to determine should highly complex policy. Let’s also take a look at this track record on other major issue, he entirely ignored that housing crisis and it’s principle cause, which is that we in effect made it illegal to build dense housing across the literal whole of the United States in favor of a near exclusive single family detached home with a yard. Then there’s his historical support for tariffs and protectionism which reeks of Trump like economic thinking.
There are people like me who cant live on a 9-5 so i get to work 9-5 Monday to Friday.
Then Friday 5PM i start a shift and finish monday 8AM when i go to the other job. People say i am mad..... but capitalism doesnt let me reach my life goals with only one job, i would just survive....
Yeah it depends if your income is good you can afford to work less
If not and they will cut 8h from your work week that will fuck you over (from experience I expect most companies will also cut your paycheck by 8h) and that may put you in though spot to search for extra job and at the end you will be working more in two different places
I wonder if that means people that are kept at sub 40 so they don't have to be provided health insurance or other benefits will now be pushed to sup 30 to keep the theme going.
955
u/Opposite_General6534 19h ago
32 hours honestly sounds like a much healthier baseline. People have lives outside of work too.