Do you support Bernie Sanders' 32 hour work week proposal?

[Jason Warfield]

This kind of already happens in certain sectors like retail, but the problem has to do with pay and benefits.

One of the overall problems with the American work force (as well as certain other countries) is the work/life balance. On top of that is that many nations (not all) have a far better record of benefit compensation and paying for work done.

And this has nothing to do with political ideology: just different business practices.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Really what this proposal will wind up being - prediction here - is that the effect will be that 32 hours will be considered a full time employee, which really only matters relative to benefit eligibility, and possibly overtime compensation.

I don't have a principled objection to the 32 hour week, as all the objections to a 32 hour week in principle apply to a 40 hour week.

So, really it's a pragmatic issue - what is it that is hoped will be better because of this? Do they anticipate overall higher incomes for nonexempt workers? It's certainly not going to effect exempt workers who don't get overtime comp anyway.

I would bet the local supermarket, though, will just structure hours so everyone works only 32 hours and therefore everybody's total take home pay will be lower.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Bernie's Proposal

You can read the proposal above, but here is the basic functions:

- The standard work week is 32 hours per week, instead of the 40 hour work week.
- Employers are not allowed to decrease wages or benefits.
- If you work more than 32 hours, you're required to get overtime pay.
- Less money, but more free time and (projected) higher productivity.
- Opponents argue that it will force employers to hire more people.
- Opponents argue it might be assembly-line work force.

Do you support or oppose this?

I'm old enough to remember strikes for a 40 hour work week.

Seriously, we don't need to work that hard anymore. We should be wage earning about 20 to 25 hours a week.

 

[Fearandloathing]

This kind of already happens in certain sectors like retail, but the problem has to do with pay and benefits.

One of the overall problems with the American work force (as well as certain other countries) is the work/life balance. On top of that is that many nations (not all) have a far better record of benefit compensation and paying for work done.

And this has nothing to do with political ideology: just different business practices.

Good post but it IS political ideology.

Canada is a left leaning country. Social programs are more popular than stimulation programs and governments fall for giving out "corporate welfare".

You see all governments spend. Conservatives give it to their business buddies and liberals give it to their commie friends. The coming election will be exactly that, the Liberals bragging on their social programs and the economy and the conservatives trying to make people believe we're in a recession, that we are on the threshold of economic doom.

But it is pure ideology.

The cycle of life

 

[Ginger Ale]

What is out of control?
Bezos making the money he does?
You think this is Bezos fault? Amazon took over whole segments of retail. It has wiped out untold number of small businesses.
Why did that happen? Because Americans keep buying from Amazon.
So who is out of control?

Anyone who makes workers feel they need to pee in a bottle in order to keep up. It's a bit much.

I never directly blamed Bezos, but I think he is responsible for his businesses practices when it comes to how humanity they treat their employees. Do you not?

As far as Amazon goes, I believe it's met it's match with Temu.

 

[cpwill]

I wanted to hold off on my vote to think through it, but, at the end of it, this is an attempt to micromanage others with a one- size- fits- all solution. Bad fit business and, not least as a result of that, bad for workers.

 

[Ginger Ale]

This kind of already happens in certain sectors like retail, but the problem has to do with pay and benefits.

One of the overall problems with the American work force (as well as certain other countries) is the work/life balance. On top of that is that many nations (not all) have a far better record of benefit compensation and paying for work done.

And this has nothing to do with political ideology: just different business practices.

I agree. This is interesting.
Work-life balance and working hours are important aspects of American work culture. Americans work longer hours per week than most other developed countries, with the average workweek being around 40 hours. However, there is a growing trend towards flexible work arrangements and remote work, with more and more companies offering their employees the ability to work from home or to set their own schedules. Despite this trend, studies have shown that many Americans still struggle to achieve a good work-life balance, with factors such as long commutes and job demands making it difficult to find time for leisure activities, hobbies, and family time. In fact, a recent study found that 52% of American workers reported feeling burned out at their jobs, with many citing long working hours and a lack of support from their employers.https://www.mixbook.com/inspiration/overworked-states-in-america-survey

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Anyone who makes workers feel they need to pee in a bottle in order to keep up. It's a bit much.

I never directly blamed Bezos, but I think he is responsible for his businesses practices when it comes to how humanity they treat their employees. Do you not?

As far as Amazon goes, I believe it's met it's match with Temu.

Temu is owned by the Chinese.
I would assume you don't think that is any better?

 

[Ginger Ale]

Temu is owned by the Chinese.
I would assume you don't think that is any better?

It's about the same I assume. Same products on Temu and Amazon from China, hopefully they follow labor laws regarding both companies.

 

[holbritter]

Bernie's Proposal

You can read the proposal above, but here is the basic functions:

- The standard work week is 32 hours per week, instead of the 40 hour work week.
- Employers are not allowed to decrease wages or benefits.
- If you work more than 32 hours, you're required to get overtime pay.
- Less money, but more free time and (projected) higher productivity.
- Opponents argue that it will force employers to hire more people.

It will. Someone has to fill that last day of the work week.

- Opponents argue it might be assembly-line work force.

Don't know about this.

Do you support or oppose this?

oppose - because I don't think someone should be paid for 40 hours when they are only working 32.

 

[holbritter]

The proposal is a government mandate. Employers could still have their workforce go over 32 hours, but they would require OT pay.

The question is, would you rather work 40 hours or work 32 hours for less money. Personally, I would take the 40. I would be more down for the 4-day work week, and get 3 days off.

I thought the plan was no decrease in salary or benefits?

-Employers are not allowed to decrease wages or benefits.

 

[holbritter]

Person A makes 20 dollars per hour, works 40 hours per week. That's 800 dollars per week.
Person B makes 20 dollars per hour, works 32 hours per week. That's 640 dollars per week.

Person A and Person B have the same wages, same employee benefits.

The proposal is not saying Person B would making 25 dollars per hours, works 32 hours per week.

It's not a 4-day work week proposal -- which is actually pretty darn good idea.

Oh ok. So this is only for hourly workers? Guess I won't be able to participate as I am paid a salary.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Bernie's Proposal

You can read the proposal above, but here is the basic functions:

- The standard work week is 32 hours per week, instead of the 40 hour work week.
- Employers are not allowed to decrease wages or benefits.

That amounts to a 20% wage increase with no reduction in ‘fringe’ benefits.

- If you work more than 32 hours, you're required to get overtime pay.

Does that (still) apply only to FLSA nonexempt personnel?

- Less money, but more free time and (projected) higher productivity.

How is effectively getting a 20% (weekly) pay raise “less money”?

- Opponents argue that it will force employers to hire more people.

Yep, if they need the same number of labor hours.

- Opponents argue it might be assembly-line work force.

I have no idea what that means.

Do you support or oppose this?

Oppose, since the goal seems to be to force employers to pay workers 20% more (same pay/benefits for 20% fewer hours) and to increase the number of workers required to maintain the same level of production.