Curious why this isn’t bigger news? Seems like every other day, HN has some front page article about dreams of a shorter work week. It’s finally a possibility, and seems like HN is pretty apathetic about it (e.g. this article is from 5 days ago). Is it that we’re still not optimistic it will actually take hold?
When ACA was passed (Obamacare), it expanded healthcare benefits to millions of part-time workers based on a new definition of "full time" that meant >=30 hours. The result was simply that many employees had their weekly hours cut to less than 30 hours.
What are the numbers on that? Could one equally say that “the result was simply that many employees received healthcare benefits that they previously did not”?
What business is this of the California government? I am 71 and a large fraction of my work life has been 32 hour work weeks, negotiated with my employers (I usually got 80% salary and 100% vacation and benefits). It boggles my mind that this would be made a law though. Individuals and their employers should work out any deal that makes sense for both parties.
> What business is this of the California government?
This is an odd question. unless California's constitution prohibits work time regulation explicitly, it's all California's government's business to legislate on these questions. Read California's constitution.
What business is this of the California government? I am 71 and a large fraction of my work life has been 32 hour work weeks, negotiated with my employers (I usually got 80% salary and 100% vacation and benefits). It boggles my mind that this would be made a law though. Individuals and their employers should work out any deal that makes sense for both parties.
It's the business of the government because for most people otherwise it's a race to the bottom. If you are in a position where you could negotiate a 32h work week for most of your life you're in a privileged position. From your bio you hold 55 patents and have written 20 books, do you think that's the position most workers are in? Most people in the US have practically no vacation compared to the rest of the developed world because there's no mandatory baseline.
Obviously this will depend on the industry and work environment, but I feel like the "4.5 day workweek" is already a thing for many office workers. What I'm talking about is the culture around slacking on a Friday. At least at my company, it's an unwritten rule that you never schedule a meeting after 12PM on a Friday. You can see from slack statuses that folks most all leave early and take longer lunch breaks. And an…
more like 'california considers codifying that which is already known'
many of the largest employers like amazon, walmart, and fast food already restrict their employees to what good does this serve? i guess it squeezes reprehensible companies by forcing them to pay healthcare/benefits, but the reality is likely that companies will just further divide and conquer the employees workday.
I see various websites show Canada as having an average of 32.5 hours per week for working hours. I don't think that is accurate. Most business here use a 40 hour week and most government departments have a 37.5 work week. Most European countries I see are well under 30 hours most mid to low 20s. I wonder if that is accurate as well. I do see videos of people from the US living in various European countries who say p…
> Most European countries I see are well under 30 hours most mid to low 20s. I wonder if that is accurate as well.
Australia has a 35-hour work week... but so many breaks too. Morning coffee. Lunch. Afternoon tea. Like it really paced out the day nicely. Not sure if the breaks were mandated or just cultural. Thing is, it never felt like we lost that much productivity. Spent a lot more at the local coffee shop though, that's for sure. But also, such better coffee than we have in the US. I think 32 hours is weird. Like 32 / 5... 6…
> Australia has a 35-hour work week... but so many breaks too. Morning coffee. Lunch. Afternoon tea. Like it really paced out the day nicely. I can understand that some people (particularly extroverts who want some time to socialize and mingle) might like this lifestyle a lot, and once in a while yeah you can use a break of course, but personally speaking I'd rather work hard straight through the day and have a large…
Eh, you do you. But I'm guessing this is perceived as anti-social behavior and will hurt your career a bit. It's always good to build relationships. Results matter, but promotions always tend to go to friends. And the connections you make at one job will continue to pay off long after you cash the final paycheck from that company. Hard to think of any job where being social with your coworkers isn't the right play. Think of it like contributing to your 401k, or going to the gym. Putting in time to build out your network will make life easier down the road.
What business is this of the California government? I am 71 and a large fraction of my work life has been 32 hour work weeks, negotiated with my employers (I usually got 80% salary and 100% vacation and benefits). It boggles my mind that this would be made a law though. Individuals and their employers should work out any deal that makes sense for both parties.
It's not so much a question of whose business it is. It is more a case of policy being a very strong force in creating (sometimes positive) change.
If societies had relied on individuals to negotiate these types of deals themselves, we'd still be working 60-hour 6 day work weeks with 2 weeks of annual vacation days (which is very little in places like Europe).
So basically everyone affected will have their hours cut without a change in hourly wage. All these people are then going to have to find a second job to avoid losing 20% of their income. How is that not going to happen?