• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shortening the work week?

Should the work week be reduced?

  • The work week should be increased to more than 40 hours, or eliminated

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • The work week should remain at 40 hours

    Votes: 17 63.0%

  • The work week should be reduced to 36-39 hours

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • The work week should be reduced to 32-35 hours

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • The work week should be reduced to less than 32 hours

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • Total voters
    27
ludahai said:
The 84-hour biweekly schedule is government rule (though there is a proposal to reduce to 40-hour workweeks and get rid of the alternating 1/2 day workdays on Saturday), but the post-lunch nap is engrained local custom... Frankly, I think it makes Taiwanese more efficient in the afternoon as the body's natural cycle calls for rest in the early afternoon...
Click to expand...

Eating a big a** lunch will do that to ya...;)
 
roguenuke said:
I know that I have seen some people saying this already, but I thought I would expand on what I have read.

If you reduce a person's workweek, and therefore their hours and the amount of money they make, then they will be more likely to qualify for government assistance programs. All government assistance programs are based on how much you make as a ratio of what your family's expenses should be based on an average amount per person for the areas/state that you live in. Just having people with jobs will not reduce how many people are on government assistance. In fact, reducing a person's pay just to create more jobs that pay at that level or below could very well increase how many people receive assistance.To show some math on this, if a person was making $20K a year at a 40 hour per week job and their hours are cut to 32 hours then they are now only making $16K a year. That $4K could certainly be the difference between their being on assistance or not. Even at higher wages per hour, the loss could lead to qualifying for assistance because higher wages being earned means a higher difference in yearly pay when hours are lost.

As others have also pointed out, if people need to make up for their hours lost by finding parttime work elsewhere or by another family member going to work, then you a) now need more jobs created to make up for the extra jobs needed to make up the pay, and b) that would mean less overall hours with the family because most likely whatever job is gotten elsewhere is going to have to be for more hours than just those that were lost during the week. If a person loses 4-6 hours a week, the person or their spouse that might not have worked is most likely not going to find a job for the same or better pay where they only work 4-6 hours a week. If we are talking about a family where the parent/parents only put 40 hours a week into work before between the two of them or even just for the one if there is only one parent, they will either have to be on assistance or now put in at least 40 hours a week but most likely somewhere between 50-60 hours per week.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight? You want more people on Government assistance? Francis Fox Piven? Is that you?

Her dream is to get so many people on gov. assistance the money would run out, people would start rioting in the streets (like Greece) the economy would callapse and a "new" form of government would step in.
It's the Cloward and Piven Strategy, but you already knew that didn't you?
 
ludahai said:
The typical workplace lunch here is a Japanese-style lunchbox with rice, three veggies, meat (usually pork or chicken) and an egg... not as much as most Americans eat...
Click to expand...

Sounds tasty. Let's do lunch sometime. :mrgreen:
 
Ed Gein said:
Relax on the weekends and in the evenings. Or, take off more time, just don't expect your employer to pay you for doing nothing.

Try running a business and see how many days you take off.
Click to expand...

Amazing isn't it? The country is going into the crapper. We are broke, someone here is suggesting cutting hours so MORE will be able to get on gov. assistance. Now we have them whining about more vacation time that hurts employers. Anyone who employs people in this economy should be thanked, not **** on.
 
ludahai said:
The typical workplace lunch here is a Japanese-style lunchbox with rice, three veggies, meat (usually pork or chicken) and an egg... not as much as most Americans eat...
Click to expand...

Probably much more healthy too. When I worked construction we used to go to an all you can eat buffet sometimes, if we could twist the supers arm to drive us (we all carpooled about 75 miles one way each day). I would be pretty much worthless the rest of the day :lol:
 
Barbbtx said:
Let me get this straight? You want more people on Government assistance? Francis Fox Piven? Is that you?

Her dream is to get so many people on gov. assistance the money would run out, people would start rioting in the streets (like Greece) the economy would callapse and a "new" form of government would step in.
It's the Cloward and Piven Strategy, but you already knew that didn't you?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you misread what I said. I would like to see less people on assistance, which is precisely why I am against shortening the work week. Not sure how you came to the other conclusion from my post. The rest of the post makes it pretty obvious that I think the OPs idea is a bad one because more people are likely to be on assistance or have to actually work more hours in more jobs.
 
Ed Gein said:
Relax on the weekends and in the evenings. Or, take off more time, just don't expect your employer to pay you for doing nothing.

Try running a business and see how many days you take off.
Click to expand...

The above is an example of American corporate culture. Just saying.

Business execs that have full staff take more time off than anyone because they have managers who run the place when they're not there. If there's an expense account, most "business trips" are combined with leisure... eating out, golfing, travelling to distant places, etc.

It's the lower level workers that are given no breathing room. And yes they should get paid vacation time. That is the whole damn point. They work all year for you and you show them some appreciation. It improves employee trust and makes them more dedicated to helping you run your business.

If you're a slave driver, people will cut corners in any way they can because they are either tired or they don't feel you care about them, so they in turn don't care about your business. American style companies are all about efficiency policies and monitoring employee activities to ensure maximum efficiency. There is no trust involved. Not in all companies, but a hell of a lot.
 
roguenuke said:
I'm pretty sure you misread what I said. I would like to see less people on assistance, which is precisely why I am against shortening the work week. Not sure how you came to the other conclusion from my post. The rest of the post makes it pretty obvious that I think the OPs idea is a bad one because more people are likely to be on assistance or have to actually work more hours in more jobs.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure my eyes glazed over during the first paragraph. :) You were explaining how it all would work out with the math and all. Just so you don't want more people on welfare, I apologize for getting it wrong.
 
Barbbtx said:
I'm pretty sure my eyes glazed over during the first paragraph. :) You were explaining how it all would work out with the math and all. Just so you don't want more people on welfare, I apologize for getting it wrong.
Click to expand...

Welfare is not a good thing, but I do think that it is necessary. I want to see less people on welfare. It needs to be fixed through better wages for workers, education and incentives within the welfare system to get people off of welfare and more self-reliant (preferably, I would make everyone more self-reliant, so that they have less of a need for welfare during bad times), and removing welfare from those who refuse to work to improve themselves and try to get off welfare.
 
Temporal said:
The above is an example of American corporate culture. Just saying.

[truncated for brevity and sanity]
Click to expand...

Working class hero drivel. You want to know why there are so few bosses and so many churls? Look in the mirror.

Run a business and then come back and chat with the adults. Just saying.
 
Temporal said:
The above is an example of American corporate culture. Just saying.

Business execs that have full staff take more time off than anyone because they have managers who run the place when they're not there. If there's an expense account, most "business trips" are combined with leisure... eating out, golfing, travelling to distant places, etc.

It's the lower level workers that are given no breathing room. And yes they should get paid vacation time. That is the whole damn point. They work all year for you and you show them some appreciation. It improves employee trust and makes them more dedicated to helping you run your business.

If you're a slave driver, people will cut corners in any way they can because they are either tired or they don't feel you care about them, so they in turn don't care about your business. American style companies are all about efficiency policies and monitoring employee activities to ensure maximum efficiency. There is no trust involved. Not in all companies, but a hell of a lot.
Click to expand...



Ya know... I hate to admit it but you're not far wrong.

My employer was bought out by a national-size corporation about four years ago. Since then paperwork has quadrupled; the proliferation of petty little rules about a gazillion insignificant issues have snowballed; electronic spying devices have been installed to keep track of all employee activities, and the slightest deviation from schedule brings down the wrath of Thor before they even check to see if it was actually justified or necessary. They give us zero trust. You can be a 1st rate worker who is NEVER in trouble, and if you put one foot wrong you get ZERO slack despite a sterling work record.

In short, they treat us like they hate us, and frankly we hate them right back. They cut corners, they're stingy with the pay and raises, they expect us to perform 2x work with half-ass equipment and inadequate admin support, and it sucks.

I'd like to go work somewhere else but the economy is bad, and from what I hear from other people this isn't just my employer, it's a common trend.


(BTW, I have run a business. Two of them. One I owned; I got squeezed out of biz by the big franchises. The other I was a manger and gave it up because my employer wanted me to be dishonest.)
 
Last edited:
Let see if I can get this straight in my mind, you suggest lowering the work week so more people can be employed, knowing full well, this goes with only the middle class on down?
Problem with what you are saying is the simple math of it. Lets say you go to the lowest end of your reduction 32 hour work weeks.

In very simple math you are going to cut the wages of 4 families, to increase the wages of one.

I'm going to use far better wages then the rest here, lets say people working are making $20 per hour, or $800 per week, now those four families are cut back 8 hours, they are now making $640 a week.

You've just cut the wages of 4 families, 20% to give one family a job paying $640 a week.
I”m sorry, I just don't see the economics of pulling down 4 families to help one. Putting that same amount of effort into creating jobs, would be a much better idea.
 
Ed Gein said:
Working class hero drivel. You want to know why there are so few bosses and so many churls? Look in the mirror.

Run a business and then come back and chat with the adults. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who has never had to work hard for anything. It shows through. You've never been the struggling working class you accuse me of being. Either that or you are exactly the kind of boss I am talking about. Either way, sorry to step on your toes, your heiness.
 
Kandahar said:
Shortening the work week?
Click to expand...

I say leave it as it is. Shortening the work week will mean that many Americans will have to find more jobs,not more Americans can find jobs.
 
Goshin said:
Ya know... I hate to admit it but you're not far wrong.

My employer was bought out by a national-size corporation about four years ago. Since then paperwork has quadrupled; the proliferation of petty little rules about a gazillion insignificant issues have snowballed; electronic spying devices have been installed to keep track of all employee activities, and the slightest deviation from schedule brings down the wrath of Thor before they even check to see if it was actually justified or necessary. They give us zero trust. You can be a 1st rate worker who is NEVER in trouble, and if you put one foot wrong you get ZERO slack despite a sterling work record.

In short, they treat us like they hate us, and frankly we hate them right back. They cut corners, they're stingy with the pay and raises, they expect us to perform 2x work with half-ass equipment and inadequate admin support, and it sucks.

I'd like to go work somewhere else but the economy is bad, and from what I hear from other people this isn't just my employer, it's a common trend.


(BTW, I have run a business. Two of them. One I owned; I got squeezed out of biz by the big franchises. The other I was a manger and gave it up because my employer wanted me to be dishonest.)
Click to expand...

This is true at my wife's job. The company was once privately owned and offered a lot of nice perks and bonuses. Nothing really expensive, but things that made for a nice work enviroment: production or performance contests that gave some recognition and reward to top performers, usually one a month every department would have an extended lunch for some sort of party or social event, generous bonuses at Christmas, a few big company parties every year. The company had a very good retention rate and many long term workers.

Then they went corporate. All the little perks were gradually cut back and eliminated. Merit raises no longer exist, now you get a bare bones cost of living raise no matter how good or poor your performance is. The company has put in place more "policies" that regulate some of the stupidest and most minute details of the day. Salaried workers are expected to put more and more time in for no additional compensation.

And what's the result? The turn over rate is much higher, meaning the comany has to spend additional dollars training the new hires that are constantly replacing the ones who leave. And those new, raw employees are not nearly as efficient at getting work done as the people they are replacing. Plus many of the workers who are there now have a much lower morale and avoid doing anything extra or above and beyond because they know two things. One, they won't be rewarded in any fashion for their extra effort. Two, the company will start to expect teh extra effort and make it part of their jobs without adding compensation for the additonal responsibilities. People cut corners and do the minimum because they feel the company is the enemy. Where as before the company had a real family feel and many of the employees were very dedicated.

If you treat your employees like crap, the best you can expect is a minimal effort. Too many companies, especailly corporate ones, lose sight of this very basic fact.
 
Psychoclown said:
This is true at my wife's job. The company was once privately owned and offered a lot of nice perks and bonuses. Nothing really expensive, but things that made for a nice work enviroment: production or performance contests that gave some recognition and reward to top performers, usually one a month every department would have an extended lunch for some sort of party or social event, generous bonuses at Christmas, a few big company parties every year. The company had a very good retention rate and many long term workers.

Then they went corporate. All the little perks were gradually cut back and eliminated. Merit raises no longer exist, now you get a bare bones cost of living raise no matter how good or poor your performance is. The company has put in place more "policies" that regulate some of the stupidest and most minute details of the day. Salaried workers are expected to put more and more time in for no additional compensation.

And what's the result? The turn over rate is much higher, meaning the company has to spend additional dollars training the new hires that are constantly replacing the ones who leave. And those new, raw employees are not nearly as efficient at getting work done as the people they are replacing. Plus many of the workers who are there now have a much lower morale and avoid doing anything extra or above and beyond because they know two things. One, they won't be rewarded in any fashion for their extra effort. Two, the company will start to expect teh extra effort and make it part of their jobs without adding compensation for the additional responsibilities. People cut corners and do the minimum because they feel the company is the enemy. Where as before the company had a real family feel and many of the employees were very dedicated.

If you treat your employees like crap, the best you can expect is a minimal effort. Too many companies, especially corporate ones, lose sight of this very basic fact.
Click to expand...

To summarize, the ones running the company are hiding in their ivory towers, detached from the company itself. All they know is what is written in the daily reports.
Treating men as men, handling people is an unknown; workers are machines...
sad, and this happens all too often.
And, until these powers that are have a major attitude change, they cannot learn nor improve.
sad....
 
The only time I had a work week shorter than 40 hours is when I was getting paid for 24, but I was working about 60, at times sleeping on the floor because it was too late to drive home. I was smart though, I re-negotiated for 40 plus OT. A couple of paychecks got their attention. The result was: If I didn’t improve my attitude they would fire me. I got to finish my BS.
All my subsequent jobs were 40 hours/week but salaried no OT; which required about 50 hours a week average.
My guess is that 50 to 60 hrs/week is the lowest cost for the employer. So….
 
The Barbarian said:
Let see if I can get this straight in my mind, you suggest lowering the work week so more people can be employed, knowing full well, this goes with only the middle class on down?
Problem with what you are saying is the simple math of it. Lets say you go to the lowest end of your reduction 32 hour work weeks.

In very simple math you are going to cut the wages of 4 families, to increase the wages of one.

I'm going to use far better wages then the rest here, lets say people working are making $20 per hour, or $800 per week, now those four families are cut back 8 hours, they are now making $640 a week.

You've just cut the wages of 4 families, 20% to give one family a job paying $640 a week.
I”m sorry, I just don't see the economics of pulling down 4 families to help one. Putting that same amount of effort into creating jobs, would be a much better idea.
Click to expand...

The effort has to be placed in education.
Then the trade deficits must stop , no more endless stream of money from our nation to Arabia, the Orient, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, now Mexico.
Having more people working with shorter hours will be more fair, but this is not the bottom line answer.
 
Ed Gein said:
Working class hero drivel. You want to know why there are so few bosses and so many churls? Look in the mirror.

Run a business and then come back and chat with the adults. Just saying.
Click to expand...
"Very conservative" says it all.
 
Psychoclown said:
This is true at my wife's job. The company was once privately owned and offered a lot of nice perks and bonuses. Nothing really expensive, but things that made for a nice work enviroment: production or performance contests that gave some recognition and reward to top performers, usually one a month every department would have an extended lunch for some sort of party or social event, generous bonuses at Christmas, a few big company parties every year. The company had a very good retention rate and many long term workers.

Then they went corporate. All the little perks were gradually cut back and eliminated. Merit raises no longer exist, now you get a bare bones cost of living raise no matter how good or poor your performance is. The company has put in place more "policies" that regulate some of the stupidest and most minute details of the day. Salaried workers are expected to put more and more time in for no additional compensation.

And what's the result? The turn over rate is much higher, meaning the comany has to spend additional dollars training the new hires that are constantly replacing the ones who leave. And those new, raw employees are not nearly as efficient at getting work done as the people they are replacing. Plus many of the workers who are there now have a much lower morale and avoid doing anything extra or above and beyond because they know two things. One, they won't be rewarded in any fashion for their extra effort. Two, the company will start to expect teh extra effort and make it part of their jobs without adding compensation for the additonal responsibilities. People cut corners and do the minimum because they feel the company is the enemy. Where as before the company had a real family feel and many of the employees were very dedicated.

If you treat your employees like crap, the best you can expect is a minimal effort. Too many companies, especailly corporate ones, lose sight of this very basic fact.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, most large companies focus on making as much profit as they can, but they tend to do it in negative ways. The best places where I have worked, have done well financially by following an excellent edict: treat your employees well, put them first, and take care of them, and they will treat your customers... and your business in the same way.
 
People should work a Military schedule before saying they say 40 hours is too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom