Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours • Hacker News Board

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#111

Post by Mountain_Skies » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 3:54 PM UTC

the_lonely_road wrote: post #52

Can we get the almost infinite list of "overtime exceptions" for salary employees removed while we are at it? There are so many Americans that never saw a 40 hour a week expectation because of these and most of those people were not paid overtime due to 'salary' expectations. Every fast food/retail store manager I have ever spoken to faces this dilemma and all of my friends in 'professional firms' like architecture/l…

Tightening up rules on exempt employment would be a good step too. Exempt was meant to be just that, an special case exemption for a few high level professionals, not the default for all white collar (and even some blue collar) work. My last job required that I fill out a timesheet each week. On an average day, I assigned hours to about four different time codes. For positions that bill by time such as attorneys and doctors, this might be reasonable but for inhouse software development, it felt a lot more like an hourly job.

Even though I was salaried, failing to have 40 hours on my timesheet each week would result in a proportional reduction in pay (there was no increase in pay if I went over 40). I mentioned this to higher ups and was told that it wasn't actually a timesheet, it was so they could determine "resource allocation", which sounded like an flimsy excuse. Using it to track PTO seems reasonable. Using it to track hours at my computer doesn't.

This wasn't a small inexperienced company. Its roots go back to the 1940s and it had over 20,000 employees, so they probably knew the relevant labor laws and either were allowed to do this or thought they'd never get called on it. Either way, exempt doesn't seem to mean much anymore other than another way for employers to squeeze employees harder.

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#112

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 3:55 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #67

ceejayoz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The research around shorter work weeks and productivity indicates "units of work" don't work that way. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/06/1013348626/iceland-finds-majo... > Now, research out of Iceland has found that working fewer hours for the same pay led to improved well-being among workers, with no loss in productivity. In fact, in some places, workers were more productive after cutting back their hours.

If the task is coverage-related (“be available to run a cash register” or “answer any phone call that comes in” or “watch this area for security purposes”), it’s exactly that ratio.

> If the task is coverage-related (“be available to run a cash register” or “answer any phone call that comes in” or “watch this area for security purposes”), it’s exactly that ratio.

But no task that actually needs done is purely coverage related. If you want someone to watch dor security purposes, you want them to actually effectively secure it to some level, and if average ability to do that drops from overwork you need more people; if you want someone to run a cash register, just having a body next to it isn't enough, they have to actually perform correctly.

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#113

Post by sexy_seedbox » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

handrous wrote: post #47

BitwiseFool wrote: post #2

I'd be perfectly happy with 35 hours, so that an eight hour workday is actually eight hours and not nine because your lunch break doesn't count.

It's weird how "9 to 5" is the phrase, but it is, more often, "8 to 5" for a nominally eight-hour workday.

Lots of English songs mention "9 to 5" but it's "9 to 6" in most of Asia and most stay until 8 or 9pm, especially at large firms.

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#114

Post by thesuperbigfrog » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 3:58 PM UTC

hourislate wrote: post #83

Ripe for "The Law of Unintended Consequences". Without changes to what is classified as Part Time Work (usually 30 hours), employers will get rid of full time staff and in some cases be able to avoid paying almost all benefits. UPS comes to mind, they would only hire part time drivers to avoid paying benefits. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/parttimeemployme... The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not…

>> Ripe for "The Law of Unintended Consequences".

That is what concerns me too.

Well-meaning laws that do not consider the second- and third-order effects can be easy for employers to game.

"If you want to work more than 30 hours per week, you have to become an independent contractor."

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#115

Post by PEJOE » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:00 PM UTC

ecommerceguy wrote: post #92

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that my ACA (Obamacare) premiums are lower than the premiums were at my last employer for similar coverage (using COBRA numbers for comparison). This might be because my last employer was bad at negotiating but I think it's mostly because they had an aging Rustbelt workforce and lots of people in roles that were unhealthy long term (linesmen and call centers). Because rates are set based on the pool'…

Sounds like you are young and because you are young you are receiving the privilege of paying less premium for health care. Health Insurance for better or worse heavily discriminates against the older folks. >> the risk in the public ACA pool is lower than the employer's pool of employees as a general rule, the public pool is substandard rating.

> worse heavily discriminates against the older folks

The ACA is actually a wealth transfer from the young to the old, like social security, because the young pay much more than their portion of healthcare costs, while the old have a ceiling on their healthcare costs.

Whether this is good policy is for the think tanks and politicians, but after the ACA it is not true that health insurance discriminates against older Americans.

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#116

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

splistud wrote: post #107

toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on vast capital accumulation to a small cohort [1], I believe they do know how wealth is being created. They're simply improving quality of life for the people doing the actual work. Conversely, its terrifying (at least to me) that there are people who endorse the dystopian status quo. [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2020/december/has-weal...

It is far more terrifying that some believe you can make simple adjustments to complex systems with no unintended consequences.

[deleted]

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#117

Post by throwaway744678 » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

darthrupert wrote: post #51

rasengan wrote: post #20

I work 80 hours per week. I do what I love so it doesn’t feel like work. By doing this I am 40 hours ahead every week than most everyone else and the output and results definitely show.

Is this a troll?

I believe this is Andrew Lee, the guy that "bought freenode", with all the drama that ensued. This has been discussed heavily here, eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27153338

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#118

Post by thoughtstheseus » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

opheliate wrote: post #100

thoughtstheseus wrote: post #25

Somewhat of a tangent but related to labor: tell your reps to abolish personal income taxes and replace it with a consumption tax. We should not be taxing labor…

My thoughts, correct me if I'm wrong here: If I'm on a very low income, likely 100% (or more) of my monthly earnings will go to buying food, paying rent/utilities, etc, so under a consumption tax, a higher proportion of my income will be taxed than under income tax (people in the lowest tax bracket generally won't pay income tax at all). Of course, you could exclude these necessities from tax, but then I find it diff…

I agree. Wealth taxes seem better but are notoriously difficult to implement. We need more people to have more money… no way to get around that.

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#119

Post by acdha » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

splistud wrote: post #110

acdha wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain your idea further? Perhaps with data about the percentage of economic value which is the direct product of hours worked which cannot be worked by other people? Link it to some attempt at an argument that, despite high profits and the disparities we've seen between worker pay and productivity, companies are simultaneously at 100% utilization with no slack capacity and cannot possibly afford to hire add…

The burden of proof is very much on your side champ

The proposed legislation describes its anticipated benefits and, since it's a law, exactly what it will do. It's totally reasonable to question that but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to explain what exactly they are claiming is wrong. Those were some sweeping claims being tossed around — it'd be really important to be able to back any of them up if you expect anyone to engage with them.

Re: Rep. Takano Introduces Legislation to Reduce the Standard Workweek to 32 Hours

#120

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

hourislate wrote: post #83

Ripe for "The Law of Unintended Consequences". Without changes to what is classified as Part Time Work (usually 30 hours), employers will get rid of full time staff and in some cases be able to avoid paying almost all benefits. UPS comes to mind, they would only hire part time drivers to avoid paying benefits. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/parttimeemployme... The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not…

> Without changes to what is classified as Part Time Work (usually 30 hours), employers will get rid of full time staff and in some cases be able to avoid paying almost all benefits.

Yeah, I’m sure that missing out on that is the kind of thing that would fly right by AFL-CIO, SEIU, and the other labor organizations that endorsed this, who are generally completely clueless about the legal context of labor and how employers exploit it.

Unfortunately, official text for H.R. 4728 [0] is not yet available, though, so we can't really resolve this.

[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728