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

California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

#51

Post by thisismyaccoun7 »

lolinder wrote: post #22
hw-guy wrote: post #14

Unless I'm missing something, this would have no impact on engineers and other professional employees who are "exempt" from overtime. My nominal 40-hour work week meant nothing if there was a crisis or schedule slip that required putting in many extra hours. The claim that this law would force companies to be more efficient by having fewer meetings assumes management are rational. Also, it's weird that it only applie…

> The claim that this law would force companies to be more efficient by having fewer meetings assumes management are rational. It also assumes that non-exempt employees are spending 8 hours a week in unnecessary meetings. Aren't most meeting-heavy jobs by definition exempt, since they'll tend to be either professional or administrative?

Researcher/Engineer in government here. The project I've been on for the last year has me averaging over a full day a week in meetings.

The PM (who has been in charge of the project for five years now and at the research center 25+) is "non technical", so she likes to have multiple tech roles in each meeting for "backup".

It's exactly the hell you'd expect.

On the plus side (/s), when COVID forced us telework, they put in a policy requiring an email at the end of every of what we did, so I have documented exactly why everything is behind.

Unfortunately this law won't apply to us though.

Re: California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

#52

Post by guyzero »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #9

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.

The classic libertarian position that naively assumes that companies and individuals have equal negotiating power.

Re: California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

#53

Post by estomagordo »

mlyle wrote: post #37

I think this is hard for California to do alone, and too big of a step. Federally, we should move to a 36 hour workweek. Maybe with a long term plan of getting to 32.

Maybe sometimes it is best to aim a bit higher than what you'd settle for. Perhaps Cali considering 32 hrs is the push the US needs for 36 hrs.

Re: California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

#54

Post by estomagordo »

dbg31415 wrote: post #32

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…

32/4 = 8

Re: California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

#56

Post by tediousdemise »

stevetodd wrote: post #50

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?

> There would be no cut in pay, and those who work more would be compensated at a rate of no less than 1.5 times the employee’s regular rate of pay.

Re: California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

#57

Post by pc86 »

IMTDb wrote: post #39
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your skills must have been uniquely valuable, and you must have been well compensated to be able to afford living on 80% of a full time salary.

"Marketing manager" go for around $140k / year. That's a job that requires some skill but definitely not in the realm of "uniquely valuable". 80% of that is $112k / year or 1.6 times the US median salary. Enough to comfortably live with, especially since the job is not physically demanding, allows remote working etc.

What does marketing manager have anything to do with anything? The GP's profile shows they certainly aren't a marketing manager and probably make quite a bit more than $140k/yr.

Re: California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

#58

Post by xyzzy21 »

worker_person wrote: post #38
debacle wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The argument on who pays for health care is the wrong question. When paying cash for an MRI is $500, and via Health Insurance it is $5,000. There are bigger issues. I used to get a weekly shot. Paid my $60 dollar co-pay. They billed insurance another $120 or so. Eventually I asked what the cash price is. $17 dollars. Was a real WTF?! moment.

You aren't paying attention - critical thinking?

The point is that employers can and will "adjust" in the same way on this.

Re: California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

#59

Post by pc86 »

dghughes wrote: post #23

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…

"low 20s" is such an outlier you need to provide sources that "most European countries" are in that range or people should take this comment as an outright lie meant to deliberately deceive.

Re: California considers a shortened, 32-hour workweek for larger companies

#60

Post by throwaway0a5e »

lolinder wrote: post #22
hw-guy wrote: post #14

Unless I'm missing something, this would have no impact on engineers and other professional employees who are "exempt" from overtime. My nominal 40-hour work week meant nothing if there was a crisis or schedule slip that required putting in many extra hours. The claim that this law would force companies to be more efficient by having fewer meetings assumes management are rational. Also, it's weird that it only applie…

> The claim that this law would force companies to be more efficient by having fewer meetings assumes management are rational. It also assumes that non-exempt employees are spending 8 hours a week in unnecessary meetings. Aren't most meeting-heavy jobs by definition exempt, since they'll tend to be either professional or administrative?

Yup.

This bill seems perfectly tailored to really screw medium businesses that aren't big enough to treat everyone like interchangeable cogs and are in blue collar industries where most employees are hourly.

Companies hiring low cost labor already play stupid games to keep people well under 40hr because benefits. They'll just plug a different number into their excel formula and send everyone their new schedules.

Salaried professionals are the ones who's time gets wasted in meetings (because there is no obvious marginal cost to doing so) but they're mostly exempt.

Post reply on HN