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

101–110 of 138 posts

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

#101

Post by mywittyname »

kube-system wrote: post #83
convexfunction wrote: post #75

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…

> There are also many salaried people who fill out timecards.

Some of them do so for accounting reasons. Not because it determines their pay.

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

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

nimbius wrote: post #45
_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…

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.

> many of the largest employers like amazon, walmart, and fast food already restrict their employees to 40 hours or 8 hours per day is the current general overtime threshold; 30 hours is the current general full-time threshold for benefit mandates.

This bill would lower the 40 hour limit to 32.

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

#103

Post by mywittyname »

polski-g wrote: post #91
alligatorplum wrote: post #71

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".

If the currency inflates at 10% a year, just give no raises for three years and they've got their pay cut right there.

This assumes that a company can find workers without raising wages.

The labor market is a market, companies and workers need to come to an agreement on wages. And, right now, it seems that workers have the upper hand in negotiations.

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

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

> Aren't most meeting-heavy jobs by definition exempt, since they'll tend to be either professional or administrative?

No.

Very many do not meet the salary threshold to be exempt, and others don't meet the detailed nature-of-the-job requirements (though, as with contractor status, there is a fair amount of miscategorization on the latter point that employers get away with unless it is challenged.)

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

#105

Post by dragonwriter »

shagie wrote: post #27
lolinder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Aren't most meeting-heavy jobs by definition exempt https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17e-overtime-co... > However, Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) of the FLSA provide an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, and other similarly skilled workers in the computer field who meet certain tests regarding their job dutie…

> an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, and other similarly skilled workers in the computer field who meet certain tests regarding their job duties and who are paid at least $684* per week on a salary basis or paid on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour.

NB: California has a much higher exemption threshold for the industry: $47.48/hour or $8,242.32/mo on a salary basis.

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

#106

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

> So basically everyone affected will have their hours cut without a change in hourly wage

From the bill text: “The compensation rate of pay at 32 hours shall reflect the previous compensation rate of pay at 40 hours, and an employer shall not reduce an employee’s regular rate of pay as a result of this reduced hourly workweek requirement.”

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

#107

Post by baconator22 »

_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…

there is a MASSIVE psychological/cultural difference between "well everyone pretty much silently agrees x" and "x is the stated rule." Why not let Thursdays become the new day that people slack off and leave early? Not trying to attack you or anything but why would you undermine an initiative to enforce a better work-life balance? Your response seems pretty complacent/apathetic, which seems irresponsible to me when so many stand to benefit from this change.

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

#108

Post by dragonwriter »

shagie wrote: post #94
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?

Calfironia is mandating that everyone currently employed when this goes through get a pay raise that can't be cut back. 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…

> California is mandating

“The current text of the bill would mandate” is more accurate, it hasn't passed out of the policy committee in the first house yet, much less become law.

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

#109

Post by kube-system »

mywittyname wrote: post #101
kube-system wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There are also many salaried people who fill out timecards. Some of them do so for accounting reasons. Not because it determines their pay.

That is what I am suggesting. Filling out a timecard has nothing to do with whether you are FLSA exempt or not.

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

#110

Post by dragonwriter »

abduhl wrote: post #66
tediousdemise wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The state of California cannot mandate “no cut in pay” by employers

It can specify no cut in full-time pay for an employer for substantially similar work, on both an individual and overall basis (the current text only does this on an individual level, but that's not all the State could do. E.g., “The minimum hourly wage shall be the greater of $X/hr or the 5/4 the actual wage paid by the employer to the employee on date Y or the 5/4 the average wage paid by the employer to employees doing substantially similar work on date Y.”)

Post reply on HN