Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

fisherphillips.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 228 posts

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#91

Post by koof »

hollasch wrote: post #39

Increasingly, American political parties are most interested in seizing and wielding power, and I feel like most citizens are occupied with surrendering and assigning that power to their preferred political party. How in the world did we get here? Is there any way we can turn back? Most of the discussion here is about whether mandating business practice would be a good or a bad business move, but hardly anyone is que…

I need more free time from my work responsibilities so I can think about this very scary question with the gravitas it deserves. Can you give me a day off?

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#92

Post by thomascgalvin »

pc86 wrote: post #64
t0mas88 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proposal isn't a paycut right? As written employees keep the same pay but work 32 hours instead of 40.

One, there are a lot of businesses that operate on margins well under 20%. Some percentage of these would absolutely go out of business if you somehow mandated 80% of the current hours for 100% of the current pay. Now you can argue they should go out of business anyway, and maybe you're right, but it's still the government passing a law to intentionally put a lot of people out of business and make a lot of people los…

> One, there are a lot of businesses that operate on margins well under 20%. > > Three, why the differentiation between 500 workers?

I suspect that the third point is an attempt to address the first. A company with five hundred employees is (in theory) better able to absorb this cost than a mom-and-pop with ten people on staff. The exact number of five hundred is probably arbitrary, though.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#93

Post by superfunny »

pandemicsoul wrote: post #63
hollasch wrote: post #39

Increasingly, American political parties are most interested in seizing and wielding power, and I feel like most citizens are occupied with surrendering and assigning that power to their preferred political party. How in the world did we get here? Is there any way we can turn back? Most of the discussion here is about whether mandating business practice would be a good or a bad business move, but hardly anyone is que…

Because there's really no reason to question whether government should reasonably limit standard business practices – we've seen, in spades, how business practices are driven entirely and only by concerns of profit while the labor market has very little flexibility that would allow workers to "vote with their feet" and move to "better" employers without outside influence. Put another way: Of course it's a good thing…

>> while the labor market has very little flexibility that would allow workers to "vote with their feet" and move to "better" employers without outside influence

Have you heard of the Great Resignation?

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#94

Post by JaimeThompson »

thurn wrote: post #38
acwan93 wrote: post #2

Serious question, and maybe this is just based on the people I've met: I've been hearing lots of business owners complaining about California's labor laws getting increasingly hostile which leads companies to relocate or move as many resources they can outside of CA, much like Tesla did. Does anyone else share that sentiment? I personally think that this is well-intentioned but has consequences that need to be though…

Tesla's 'move' was a PR thing -- the great majority of the engineering team is staying in CA.

It was also Musk searching for even more subsidies from the Texas state government.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#95

Post by Broken_Hippo »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #69
Animats wrote: post #35

What we need is more enforcement of existing labor laws. A 40-hour work week with teeth. No "unpaid overtime". No "time shaving". Out of hours phone calls count as work time, with a minimum time for a call. (3 hours in the movie industry).

What I’d like to see is less government power, which means they stay out of my life, which means more freedom and less coercion, which means I can negotiate my life as I see fit like a grown up who is responsible for himself.

Exactly how much are you willing to be coerced to put food on the table? Because that's what we are really looking at here: Employers having power to coerce you into lifestyles and coerce you into things just so that you can put food on the table. Laws protecting employees (most of us!) are there because employers didn't simply treat people well, and people had little choice if they wanted to eat.

And I'll point out that you might be a grown up, but you live in a society. Simply taking care of yourself isn't enough, not only because other people are obviously doing things that benefit you greatly. You know, like treat patients in emergency rooms and uphold wiring standards so your air conditioner doesn't burn your house down, and even if it does the fire department puts the fire out without even forcing you to sell it for cheap or show proof of fire insurance.

You couldn't help where you were born, nor did you have a choice in your own primary education, nor whether or not your parents were rich or poor. You might be responsible for yourself now, but you don't fully take care of yourself, your starting level got chosen by others, and you are at the mercy of the actions of others, which can greatly affect your day to day life.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#96

Post by ceeplusplus »

kelnos wrote: post #26
ceeplusplus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you've been in California recently, but in the East Bay at least a large number of small businesses have closed down and formerly vibrant places now look like homeless encampments. I used to feel comfortable taking out my phone even after dark on BART, now I don't. The economy might still be chugging along but it's not chugging along on the back of the big cities with ultra liberal takes on crime/home…

> Seriously, just check out downtown SF if you don't believe me. It feels dead. Wouldn't we attribute this more to COVID, though? This thread is talking about a hypothetical poor economy due to businesses leaving because of employee-friendly labor laws. In early 2020 downtown was pretty vibrant. > There are more beggars than tourists. I get that you're exaggerating for effect, but c'mon. I saw plenty of tourists/shop…

> Wouldn't we attribute this more to COVID, though?

It's been my anecdotal experience that hot areas in other cities like New York and Chicago are not dead like SF and the East Bay are. Nor are they as sketchy - I'd feel comfortable walking around Millennium Park at night and be pretty confident I wouldn't get robbed. Can you say the same about the Embarcadero?

> hypothetical poor economy due to businesses leaving because of employee-friendly labor laws

Tons of small businesses are dying out and you think the poor economy is hypothetical? Just because Chipotle and McD's can afford to pay every surcharge CA/SF imposes through labor laws doesn't mean small businesses can afford to. It's ironic, because despite all those surcharges the suburbs are still more affordable for a low skill worker than SF is, primarily because the supply of housing is so much better.

2 coffee shops in my local area have closed down recently for good. Starbucks is still going strong, but that doesn't mean the local economy is vibrant.

> I saw plenty of tourists/shoppers in the Powell/Market area in the middle of a weekday last week, out and about, doing their thing

Hmm, I went last week on a weekday and I'd put it at 50/50 homeless/beggar vs tourist. Powell St. BART/Union Square area. In any case, it was certainly a lot worse than a few years ago when it would be more like 95% tourists. I saw multiple homeless sleeping in Union Square which would have been unimaginable 3 years ago.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#97

Post by [deleted] »

Cyph0n wrote: post #76
nostromo95 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh whether government should have the right to do this takes a backseat to the fact that the government is the only way we can do this. The government is the only coordinating mechanism we have to enforce something like this, otherwise everyone is playing the prisoner’s dilemma.

The primary alternative to achieving this is through formation of unions. But, I’d wager there is an overlap between people who are against enforcement via legislation and people who are anti-union.

[deleted]

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#98

Post by thomascgalvin »

Cyph0n wrote: post #76
nostromo95 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh whether government should have the right to do this takes a backseat to the fact that the government is the only way we can do this. The government is the only coordinating mechanism we have to enforce something like this, otherwise everyone is playing the prisoner’s dilemma.

The primary alternative to achieving this is through formation of unions. But, I’d wager there is an overlap between people who are against enforcement via legislation and people who are anti-union.

We've also seen significant anti-union legislation in recent decades; at the very least this would need to be undone in order to give workers a fair shot.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#100

Post by josephcsible »

Cyph0n wrote: post #76
nostromo95 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh whether government should have the right to do this takes a backseat to the fact that the government is the only way we can do this. The government is the only coordinating mechanism we have to enforce something like this, otherwise everyone is playing the prisoner’s dilemma.

The primary alternative to achieving this is through formation of unions. But, I’d wager there is an overlap between people who are against enforcement via legislation and people who are anti-union.

By "people who are anti-union", do you mean "people who believe unions shouldn't be allowed to exist", or "people who believe unions shouldn't be allowed to force workers to join as a condition of having the job"?
Post reply on HN