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

121–130 of 228 posts

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#121

Post by qiskit »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #119
qiskit wrote: post #115

Instead of all these regulations, why not institute basic income. If every adult was given $2000 ( or whatever figure we come up with ) you wouldn't have to create so many laws. Minimum wage, work hours, retirement, diversity, etc laws would be unnecessary because it would be difficult to exploit people whose needs are met. Why pass hundreds of laws when you can pass 1 that solves all the problem?

$2000 barely covers rent ( 1 br LA/SF). We’d also need rent control legislation to prevent rents from rising to absorb the UBI. Apart from that I agree - UBI is the simplest, cheapest way to lift the population out of poverty. The outcomes are fantastic - I recommend Rutger Bregman’s book on it.

> $2000 barely covers rent ( 1 br LA/SF).

The market will develop housing for basic income people or you could always move to lower cost areas.

> We’d also need rent control legislation to prevent rents from rising to absorb the UBI.

Nope. If people are given basic income, the market will develop housing/services to cater to them.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#122

Post by bb88 »

superfunny wrote: post #93
pandemicsoul wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Most companies treat employees as necessary liabilities to make profit and not assets. Flexibility only went one way, and people felt that life is too short to be treated like shit, so they left. Usually the bosses/managers/execs had tons of flexibility, but the employees didn't.

I'm not saying your wrong, it's just that it took a pandemic for people to realize that working in a shitty job for 20 years may not be the best use of their lives.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#123

Post by michaelmrose »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #68
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.

By prisoners dilemma, do you mean that people are free to negotiate amongst themselves as they see fit? Oh the horror…

We already saw what happens when people are free to negotiate for themselves with people who possess most of the money and resources. People including children were working 60 hours a week in horrendously unsafe conditions for barely enough to live.

The government isn't an interloper inserting itself. The government is US. We are negotiating with employers in a fashion where we actually possess enough influence to make a difference.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#124

Post by ac29 »

t0mas88 wrote: post #52
farseer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! 40 hours workweek with mandatory overtime pay (usually double per hour) with a minimum duration. Reducing the workweek below that would be considered unnecessary government intervention and is liable to be bad for business and workers. No one wants a pay cut that goes with it.

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

That doesnt follow - if you get paid by the hour, a mandatory reduction in hours is a mandatory reduction in pay.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#125

Post by standardUser »

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.

"which means I can negotiate my life as I see fit"

You seem to have absolutely no clue what life is like for most working people, combined with a frightening lack of historical context. Can you describe in precise detail how you expect an unskilled laborer to successfully negotiate an agreement in their favor when the employer can wield their vastly greater power without any government hindrance?

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#126

Post by standardUser »

farseer wrote: post #49
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).

This! 40 hours workweek with mandatory overtime pay (usually double per hour) with a minimum duration. Reducing the workweek below that would be considered unnecessary government intervention and is liable to be bad for business and workers. No one wants a pay cut that goes with it.

The government saying 40 hours in the work week is OK, but any other number of hours to you is "unnecessary government intervention"? What makes the number 40 sacred?

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#127

Post by dennis_jeeves1 »

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…

>but hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate.

That's because you are in the wrong forum. I would think that there are forums out there where unpopular or less common opinions are the norm. Your original point is still true, far less people care less about their freedom, welcome to life.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#128

Post by hemreldop »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #119
qiskit wrote: post #115

Instead of all these regulations, why not institute basic income. If every adult was given $2000 ( or whatever figure we come up with ) you wouldn't have to create so many laws. Minimum wage, work hours, retirement, diversity, etc laws would be unnecessary because it would be difficult to exploit people whose needs are met. Why pass hundreds of laws when you can pass 1 that solves all the problem?

$2000 barely covers rent ( 1 br LA/SF). We’d also need rent control legislation to prevent rents from rising to absorb the UBI. Apart from that I agree - UBI is the simplest, cheapest way to lift the population out of poverty. The outcomes are fantastic - I recommend Rutger Bregman’s book on it.

California is a huge state, you don’t have to live in the heart of LA or San Fran

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#129

Post by ac29 »

qiskit wrote: post #121
andrei_says_ wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$2000 barely covers rent ( 1 br LA/SF). We’d also need rent control legislation to prevent rents from rising to absorb the UBI. Apart from that I agree - UBI is the simplest, cheapest way to lift the population out of poverty. The outcomes are fantastic - I recommend Rutger Bregman’s book on it.

> $2000 barely covers rent ( 1 br LA/SF). The market will develop housing for basic income people or you could always move to lower cost areas. > We’d also need rent control legislation to prevent rents from rising to absorb the UBI. Nope. If people are given basic income, the market will develop housing/services to cater to them.

"The market" has shown itself to be woefully inadequate at developing housing for those on the lower part of the income scale. I'm not sure why that would change under a basic income scenario.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#130

Post by plankers »

akira2501 wrote: post #74
monocasa wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of the length of the work week and who it applies to is already a concept defined by government.

Stated this way it makes it sound as if the government, unbidden by anything external, just decided to make this a requirement one day. Of course, this was not the case. In reality workers, unions and even industry leaders themselves were already pushing for this decades before the government codified it in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

People literally died fighting for the 40-hour workweek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
Post reply on HN