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

31–40 of 138 posts

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

#31

Post by worker_person »

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 year, IBM lost a big lawsuit. She got a very big check.

https://redmondmag.com/articles/2006/11/26/ibm-pays-tech-wor...

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

#32

Post by dbg31415 »

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 hours 24 minutes a day. Just strange way to slice it.

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

#33

Post by tokai »

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…

>Most European countries I see are well under 30 hours most mid to low 20s.

Which countries? The EU average is 37.2. I don't know of any that is under 30.

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

#34

Post by chrisjc »

usrn wrote: post #26
_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…

That's actually a written rule for us, complete with the "no meeting" meeting scheduled in Outlook.

Same... however, it's also the time that I actually get a chance to do things without being interrupted.

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

#35

Post by s1artibartfast »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #19
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.

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.

Unless you are starving, it is a matter of tradeoffs. At least half of people could take some sort of pay cut, as demonstrated by the fact that 50% of people do in fact make less.

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

#36

Post by worker_person »

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?

Had a few jobs that were mostly just meetings. Mostly because there was so much red tape, that no real work could actually get done. Think, 200 hours of various employees time to approve a 5 hour project.

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

#38

Post by worker_person »

debacle wrote: post #29
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?

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.

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

#39

Post by IMTDb »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #19
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.

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.

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

#40

Post by logicalmonster »

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…

> 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 larger uninterrupted block of time available in the evening for my own activities outside of the work environment.

Post reply on HN