91–100 of 138 posts
This will just result in lowered salaries across the boards no? The article mentions that there won't be any pay cuts, and that might be true for the current employees but for new employees the companies will just adjust (read: cut) pay to 32hr weeks. I am also struggling to see how they plan on keeping track of this "no pay cut".
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…
I would say that .5 is more like .75 - still gotta go through traffic to get to work, and people are still in a place they (apparently) rather not be. Eliminating the day entirely is still quite valuable compared to leaving it as-is.
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?
This, however, wouldn't be able to practically impact future hires or readjustments of pay bands. So, all future employees would likely see a pay cut.
Bob was working at $20/h prior to the 32. When the change happens, Bob is now working at $25/h.
When Charlie joins working at 32h/w, Charlie will be hired at $20/h.
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 of this is yours?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: the downvotes would seem to mean my "often accurate" generalization here is not accurate often enough to be worth saying, which I'm willing to believe. No level of detail in a HN comment can substitute for hours of research and talking with a lawyer, of course! A good indicator is "do you have to fill out a timesheet". If you do, that means you're probably paid an hourly wage, and you should be paid overtime; i…
You can be hourly and exempt. You can be paid a fixed salary and be non-exempt. There are also many salaried people who fill out timecards. Edit to your edit: > my "often accurate" generalization here is not accurate often enough to be worth saying, which I'm willing to believe. No level of detail in a HN comment can substitute for hours of research and talking with a lawyer Your generalization is frequently incorrec…
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.
This is a separate, but important issue that warrants its own laws.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
> they put in a policy requiring an email at the end of every of what we did Every day? Every week? You left out a word. Every day would be awful. Every week isn't bad. At my work, we recently implemented a Slack bot that would ask you on Friday what you got done, what you wanted to get done but didn't, if you have any blockers, and what you hope to accomplish next week. Honestly, when it was first deployed, I hated…
Passing blockers and the like the way you do it seems decent.