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

61–70 of 138 posts

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

#61

Post by pc86 »

jader201 wrote: post #4

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?

Most employees, and I'm willing to bet about 98% of those reading HN who aren't contractors, are exempt and salaried. So "work week" in the legal sense has only a vague correlation to the work actually get done. If you're assigned the same amount of work, you don't really have much of a choice.

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

#63

Post by lukeaf »

Considering the companies they are talking about here, wouldn't it just be better to work towards a more goal driven work agreement? Show up, do what is required and then the time is yours?

If you're being paid regardless then what does it matter if you're "on the bench" for a few hours or you leave early for the day? A lot, if we're talking about employee morale. Not much if someone is sitting at their desk trying to find stuff to do.

So long as there is effective communication (which I know can be a challenge) then it really doesn't (or shouldn't) matter when a person is working if the gets done. No?

40h (or 32h) work weeks make even less sense when you work remotely.

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

#64

Post by nickt »

_fat_santa wrote: post #21

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…

In the UK, we call it POETS day. I’ve successfully planted that seed at a few US-based companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POETS_day

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

#65

Post by riyadh144 »

worker_person wrote: post #31
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…

Many years ago. Knew a tech worker that had worked years of unpaid overtime for IBM. She said it was fine, because she was exempt. So I looked up the definition of exempt. She didn't meet the legal definition. Argued with her for hours over it. She refused to believe that she was being taken advantage of. In her mind all a company had to do was say you were exempt, and that was enough. Eventually I gave up. Following…

So what is the definition of an exempt worker? How do I know if I am not exempt and being used.

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

#66

Post by abduhl »

tediousdemise wrote: post #56
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.

The state of California cannot mandate “no cut in pay” by employers (although I'm sure they would like to, because a 20% cut to income tax would devastate the state's budget - which is why this idea is dead on arrival). Your pay will be reduced appropriately either based on an hourly rate or a cut to your salary.

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

#67

Post by solveit »

lukeaf wrote: post #63

Considering the companies they are talking about here, wouldn't it just be better to work towards a more goal driven work agreement? Show up, do what is required and then the time is yours? If you're being paid regardless then what does it matter if you're "on the bench" for a few hours or you leave early for the day? A lot, if we're talking about employee morale. Not much if someone is sitting at their desk trying t…

It's probably easier to change the law than it is to change the minds of the hour-counters.

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

#69

Post by brk »

lukeaf wrote: post #63

Considering the companies they are talking about here, wouldn't it just be better to work towards a more goal driven work agreement? Show up, do what is required and then the time is yours? If you're being paid regardless then what does it matter if you're "on the bench" for a few hours or you leave early for the day? A lot, if we're talking about employee morale. Not much if someone is sitting at their desk trying t…

Your logic is not wrong, but I think the part you are omitting is that most managers really do not know how to manage. In most companies nobody REALLY has a good feel for how much work someone should get done in a given amount of time, or what fair compensation would actually be. This puts us into the mode of "pay the minimum amount we can, and then try to extract maximum work product".

If an employee is measurably unproductive for a few hours regularly, then the assumption is that their manager has failed somehow. I agree that this is most likely not an accurate conclusion, but it is a prevalent one.

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

#70

Post by j_walter »

Flatcircle wrote: post #68

Let the market decide, there's a labor shortage. It may not be a bad idea but to make it a law is crazy.

To make a wide reaching and vague law that doesn't fit every industry is crazy. Are Amazon warehouse workers or delivery drivers really as productive in 32 hours as they are in 40 hours? No...there is no way that is possible. This might work for some big cubicle farms...but not for manufacturing type industries.
Post reply on HN