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

161–170 of 228 posts

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#161

Post by ZeroGravitas »

josephcsible wrote: post #160
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't California stop companies from preventing their ex-employees from working for competitors? Sounds like they're doing exactly what you want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California

What does that have to do with unions?

> If I want to work for a company, and the company wants to hire me, we should be free to enter into a contract. A third party shouldn't have the power to say "you can't unless you pay us dues".

Seems like you only want to prevent unions from doing this, but not employers. You also want to prevent them entering into contracts with employers. It's not really a consistent argument is it?

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#162

Post by Vladimof »

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…

> Most of the discussion here is about whether mandating business practice would be a good or a bad business move, but hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate.

Isn't the Government already limiting the workweek to 40h?

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#163

Post by 0x500x79 »

redisman wrote: post #144
hemreldop wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Also even in my wildest communist fantasies it’s completely infeasible for UBI to cover a 1br market rent in a big city without that immediately causing completely ridiculous inflation. Fiddling with monetary policy doesn’t magically 3x the housing supply.

Wrong comment? The comment is saying move out of big cities. I agree.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#164

Post by michaelmrose »

ac29 wrote: post #124
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.

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

It's more complicated than that. Cost of labor is driven by what management is willing to offer and what employees can afford to accept. If a 32 hour effective cap leads to employees demanding 20 and employers offering 15 they can keep on offering until their firm goes out of business if they like.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#165

Post by aaomidi »

pc86 wrote: post #67
thot_experiment wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I mean we should also have a 32 hour work week but the laws surrounding it need teeth for sure. We should hold executives/managers criminally liable with the potential for jail time for repeat offenses. It's absolutely fucking absurd that shoplifting, especially when performed by disadvantaged folks carries harsher penalties than systematic wage theft. It's upside down clown world out there, abusing your positio…

Are you saying the punishment for shoplifting should be less if you're disadvantaged compared to if you're not?

Actually, yes.

Punishment doesn't fix the need to shoplift.

Maybe if we stop trying to solve everything with cops we'd actually make some social progress?

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#166

Post by josephcsible »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #161
josephcsible wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with unions?

> If I want to work for a company, and the company wants to hire me, we should be free to enter into a contract. A third party shouldn't have the power to say "you can't unless you pay us dues". Seems like you only want to prevent unions from doing this, but not employers. You also want to prevent them entering into contracts with employers. It's not really a consistent argument is it?

I'm okay if a union gets someone else to voluntarily agree to a contract that requires employee membership. I'm not okay with a union unilaterally forcing this without agreement.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#167

Post by aaomidi »

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.

You know you can do that right?

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#168

Post by robotresearcher »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #65
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.

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

The government is one of the mechanisms we created to negotiate things.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#169

Post by ZeroGravitas »

josephcsible wrote: post #166
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I want to work for a company, and the company wants to hire me, we should be free to enter into a contract. A third party shouldn't have the power to say "you can't unless you pay us dues". Seems like you only want to prevent unions from doing this, but not employers. You also want to prevent them entering into contracts with employers. It's not really a consistent argument is it?

I'm okay if a union gets someone else to voluntarily agree to a contract that requires employee membership. I'm not okay with a union unilaterally forcing this without agreement.

Isn't it the authoratarian government that's enforcing these laws? Why are you blaming the poor unions, they're only doing what they legally have to do to maximise the returns for their shareholders.

Re: Proposed bill would shorten California workweek to 32 hours

#170

Post by josephcsible »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #169
josephcsible wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm okay if a union gets someone else to voluntarily agree to a contract that requires employee membership. I'm not okay with a union unilaterally forcing this without agreement.

Isn't it the authoratarian government that's enforcing these laws? Why are you blaming the poor unions, they're only doing what they legally have to do to maximise the returns for their shareholders.

I'm not blaming the unions for doing that. I am blaming the government for giving the unions the power to do that.
Post reply on HN