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

131–140 of 228 posts

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#131

Post by notahacker »

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.

The reason various entities wanted it codified in law was because regardless of what labour with actual negotiating power and businesses with the ethics and margins to not demand absurdly high workweeks wanted, millions of workers didn't have much choice.

When child labour was legal, lots of children worked.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#132

Post by tanaros »

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?

>> Have you heard of the Great Resignation?

Isn’t the Great Resignation driven at least in part by the government’s influence? COVID lockdowns and regulations heavily incentivized employers to offer more flexibility around remote work, and COVID economic relief policies helped provide folks with the financial stability needed to look for better employment. I’m not sure this would have occurred organically without any government intervention.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#133

Post by linedash »

jcpst wrote: post #102
dizzant wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This grinds my gears. I'm a part time at my office (govt contractor), and do more work in 20 hours than some others on my team do in 40. Restrictions on firing underperformers put us in the position of "needing" 40 hours in the workweek.

Let’s give them the benefit and say they get all their expected tasks done in that 32 hours. What’s disappointing is wasting that time on social media, when those extra 8 hours could be to improve a process, do some self-learning, mentoring, research… at least, that’s what I do if what I need to get done doesn’t fill the week.

Or you know; you could have a healthier work life balance whilst getting that same level of work done in the 32 hours.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#134

Post by eigen »

chaostheory wrote: post #9
dragonwriter wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I’m almost 50, and I’ve been hearing and reading lots of this my whole life. But somehow California’s economy keeps doing well, even without being one of the places that are winning the battle to attract the firms that are…

California had just had its net population change going negative for the first time recently. There is a threshold where more businesses leave that it’s starting to reach. The cost of living doesn’t help along with crime. Climate change will also make the situation worse in the coming years, where we eventually lose temperate weather in exchange for forest fires. We’re already experiencing failing infrastructure like…

> California had just had its net population change going negative for the first time recently.

based on 2020 census, California is still growing.

2020: 39,538,223

2010: 37,253,956

6.1% increase

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange...

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#135

Post by User23 »

camdat wrote: post #71
artificialLimbs wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately. People should be able to negotiate between themselves without interference from the government.

As should children! Why should the pesky government step in the way of my child working in a factory.

It doesn’t if your family business is farming.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#136

Post by drdaeman »

lores wrote: post #116
artificialLimbs wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately. People should be able to negotiate between themselves without interference from the government.

With all respect, that is an astoundingly naive viewpoint in light of the fact that there is nowhere near power equality between employer and worker.

I suppose many folks here are in those blessed industries and positions where employers and employees are in much more balanced relationships than mostwhere.

Which is how it should be; I don't think anyone would doubt that GP is correct in this regard. But - very sadly - not how it works in most of the reality.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#137

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

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…

Government power isn't the only power. Workers cheer government regulation as one of their only leverages against employer power (or the power of capital).

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#138

Post by forbiddenvoid »

nostromo95 wrote: post #72
pc86 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, this seems like a completely backward take. If you don't care about whether or not government should be able to do things, and are only concerned with whether or not it does things you like, you end up with a government that can do whatever it wants. Eventually, that power will be wielded by someone you find detestable, or even worse, someone who finds you detestable.

Seems like we're mixing up couple things here--(a) the level to which a government represents the people and (b) the powers that a government should have. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that the government is--in its ideal essence--just a way for a population to collectively enforce compliance with / contribution to a social good. I don't think it's controversial to say that if 100% of people wanted a 32 hour wo…

It's probably more nuanced than that. If 100% of people wanted a 32-hour work week, a law wouldn't be necessary - we would just have a 32-hour work week. The fact that the number is less than 100% is the reason we need a law, because the incentives aren't aligned between those who want it and those who don't.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#139

Post by Rebelgecko »

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 hasn't developed housing for people on the current minimum wage, so I have my doubts that it would be any different with UBI

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#140

Post by User23 »

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.

Rents will simply rise by whatever the amount of the basic income is.
Post reply on HN