What do you think the odds are that the 32 hour work week bill will get passed?

[tzolkin]

But a four day week? That's a shift from needing 2 hours of daycare a day, 5 days a week, to needing 10 hours of daycare one day a week.

Having the option for fewer hours in the work week may make it possible for some parents to completely eliminate their need for daycare. I think many people with elementary aged kids would opt to work 5 shorter days per week instead of working 4 "regular" days and having one off. When my kids were young, I worked a job with no benefits because it allowed me to set my own hours. It was something like 8:40-3:10 so I went in after they got on the bus in the morning and I was home before they got dropped off in the afternoon.

Another issue with this. If you are only working 32 hours per week, you are part time. What incentive does your employer have to give you benefits? No health care, no vacation, no retirement.

I think that's the point. This would make 32 hours be considered full-time, not part-time. So employees working 32 hours would be eligible for benefits.

I know some companies already consider 32 hours full-time w/ benefits (mine does). I have known others where it's 36 hours or 37.5

 

[JimMIA]

Of course, no matter how many hours comprise the work week, whether benefits are provided at all, which benefits, the quality and cost of those benefits -- all that stuff is up to the individual employer. And the strong trend for many years has been to reduce benefits.

The number of hours requiring overtime payment by statute for hourly employees has nothing to do with benefits, except that cutting benefits in response to increased payroll costs would be one option employers would consider. Laws change, businesses adjust.

 

[MrsCobraBubbles]

This would be amazing! There's no chance it will happen, America is too in love with capitalism.

 

[GreatLakes]

People take the jobs they can get. Watch any conversation about college costs and you'll see loads of people who think kids these days should pick a trade rather than taking out student loans... but most of those people aren't thinking about what it is like being a 50+ tradesperson in a physically demanding job with absolutely no skills that could land a job more suited for an aging body. People commit to these fields when they're young - late teens or early 20s, mostly - and the work doesn't feel that hard. But most of us have 45+ working years in our lifetimes and our overall fitness tends to change pretty drastically from the start of that window until its end.

I also think not enough effort is put into taking care of that body as it ages. If you are doing a physically demanding job, especially one that includes repeated motions, you need to work on mobility, do strength or resistance training that counters your repetitive motion, and take your lifestyle outside of work seriously. Your body is a tool and you need to try and keep it optimal.

I have an uncle that retired after 40 years in a very physical maintenance job but he really took care of himself to make sure he didn't break down. He never drank, never smoked, ate a pretty clean diet, and for the last 20 years started and ended every day with yoga. The guy is churning out 60-80 miles of running a week in retirement so the job didn't break him.

On the other hand I have an acquaintance that also had a physically demanding job in industrial HVAC but went to the bar after work more days than not, celebrated the weekend with 6-packs, smoked most of his life, and has a pot belly. He had to retire from his job before he was 40 and is having trouble making anywhere near what he was making before. You aren't going to get 40 years of hard labor out of any tool you abuse.

 

[Cheburashka]

When legislation eventually gets around to voting on this, do you think this bill will be passed, or rejected? What are your thoughts on a 32 hour work week vs 40?

If it were ever to be voted on, which itself is unlikely, it would be rejected by a wide margin.

 

[Cheburashka]

I also think not enough effort is put into taking care of that body as it ages...You aren't going to get 40 years of hard labor out of any tool you abuse.

There's a bit of blaming the victim with that line of thinking. There are conditions unrelated to diet & exercise, such as arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and physical injuries that are not one's fault, that make 30 - 40 years of manual labor untenable. Your uncle who is running 60 - 80 miles per week in retirement owes that ability to luck as much as to his own self-care.

 

[Cheburashka]

a four day week?... it meant that schools didn't have to put art and music and band on the chopping block (or cross their fingers and hope the voters will support a levy to keep them), it would be worth adapting to IMO.

As an elementary teacher I can tell you that going to a four day week wouldn't work for schools. Children need the 5 days a week to learn what they need to learn. If it's going to be 4 days a week, then summer vacation will no longer be possible. That means there won't be any money savings, because the same number of days are needed to teach the same amount of material in one school year. It would just be a longer school year, with shorter weeks. Fine if you want that to be the new schedule, but it won't translate to savings for districts. On the contrary, it will be more expensive because school buildings will have to be air conditioned & maintained all summer, whereas currently districts get a break on the utility bills in the summer.

Even if school could magically be 36 days shorter per year with the students somehow magically learning just as much, keep in mind that the teacher shortage is already bad enough without lowering salaries. A lot of teachers, including myself with 20 years experience, would walk away from teaching if our pay was substantially cut, and teaching would be even less attractive as a potential career choice to college students than it is now. I barely earn enough to own a home independently as it is. We're not all in union states with union salaries, or living in small, cheap towns out in the country. The amount of work I have to do isn't worth living near the poverty line. I could just get one of those $15 per hour jobs bagging groceries at Whole Foods, instead, and not have to take my work home with me regularly like I do now.

 

[Cheburashka]

It means that "full time" is now considered 32 hours a week, and overtime and full timer benefits would need to be paid out to people working that much or more. It just lowers the threshold for this to kick in. It means nothing for salaried employees.

Salaried employees are the most overworked employees in our society, so what's the point in making this change if it doesn't benefit the people who are really suffering from overwork and burnout?

 

[Cheburashka]

There are a lot of school districts going to 4 day weeks...would work for those teachers, in theory.

It would only work in an unexamined theory if you're referring to only paying teachers for 4 days of work. If you're talking about a longer school day to achieve 4 days, which is how those districts are doing it, then those teachers will need to work the 5th day of the week as a conferencing & prep day, as there will be less time after the longer school each day for teachers to prep and plan, and that work simply has to get done, and no one can work into the night every night without making dinner or caring for their own children- not someone who's living on a schoolteacher's salary, anyway, and can't afford help. So you can transition to a 4-day school week (which is still experimental & debatable in terms of how children will academically respond to the longer school days), but you won't be able to cut teacher pay.

 

[ronandannette]

About 25 years ago my supervisor was complaining about the work ethic of some of the employees. I replied, "Gee, and I was going to ask for every Friday off this summer, at 80% of weekly pay."

He responded, "Don't ask today."

I was serious. I wanted to work 4 days for 80% of my salary, but he wouldn't go for it.

More than likely because 20% of your salary wouldn't come close to paying for a replacement during your off-time. Presuming you need 5 full days a week to do your work, that productivity would need to be replaced. If you don't need the full 5 days, management should have already recognized that and adjusted staffing accordingly.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

I would much rather see max hours put in by the government as "40" is kind of a joke for most salaried employees. Germany has a max of 48 hours per week with a minimum of 11 hours between working periods... seems like a good place to start:

Under the German Act on Working Time (Arbeitszeitgesetz), an employee’s working time is limited to a maximum of eight hours per working day and 48-hours per week. This 48 hours threshold applies to all employees working a five or six day week. However, most employees in Germany work five days and 40 hours per week at the most.

Under German law, an increase to up to ten hours per day is permissible without a special reason being necessary if the average of eight hours per day is not exceeded over a six-month reference period. However, as European law provides for only a four month reference period, it is advisable to ensure that the average is not exceeded within the shorter four month period.

There are further restrictions for pregnant and nursing mothers. Generally speaking pregnant and nursing mothers must not work over 8.5 hours per day or 90 hours across a two week period. If a pregnant or nursing mother is younger than 18 further limitations apply – they must not work over eight hours per day or 80 hours across a two week period. In addition, pregnant and nursing mothers cannot work between the hours of 8.00 p.m. and 6 a.m. or on Sundays or bank holidays.

In addition to this, young people between 15 and 18 years old are not allowed to work more than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week. A working week for young people is limited to five days a week. Generally, those aged between 15 and 18 may only be employed between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. and their employment on Sundays or bank holidays is only permitted in exceptional cases.

Where the daily working time exceeds six working hours employees are entitled to at least a 30 minute break (or a 45 minute break where the daily working time exceeds nine hours).

After each working day, employees are entitled to have an uninterrupted rest period of at least eleven hours (twelve hours for those aged between 15 and 18) before the beginning of the next working day. Within that rest period the employees are free to do what they want and are not obliged to wait on the employer’s premises. Shortening this rest period to ten hours is permitted, for example, in hospitals and other care facilities as well in restaurants and other catering facilities.

On Sundays and public holidays there is a general prohibition on working time which may only be derogated from in exceptional cases, such as for caring for the ill as well as in the transportation and tourism sectors.

German law does provide for several exceptions regarding working time. For instance, applicable collective bargaining agreements (Tarifverträgen) or works agreements (Betriebsvereinbarungen) based on collective bargaining agreements may provide for provisions that deviate from the above – mentioned rules to the detriment of the employees to a certain degree and in specific cases. In addition, in specific industries where shift work is necessary (such as in the metal industry) the competent authority can individually grant an employer an increase in the daily working time of eight hours.

Source: https://www.globalworkplaceinsider....ions-on-an-employees-working-week-in-germany/

It's always fun to work with my German colleagues as they log out everyday at a set time and they can not support late meetings. As someone who has night meetings with China/Korea and early morning meetings with Europe... I'm jealous of their ability to cite law for the reason they cannot join.

 

[tvguy]

It would only work in an unexamined theory if you're referring to only paying teachers for 4 days of work. If you're talking about a longer school day to achieve 4 days, which is how those districts are doing it, then those teachers will need to work the 5th day of the week as a conferencing & prep day, as there will be less time after the longer school each day for teachers to prep and plan, and that work simply has to get done, and no one can work into the night every night without making dinner or caring for their own children- not someone who's living on a schoolteacher's salary, anyway, and can't afford help. So you can transition to a 4-day school week (which is still experimental & debatable in terms of how children will academically respond to the longer school days), but you won't be able to cut teacher pay.

It appears between 500 to 600 school districts in the U.S. are on the 4 day week. Seems difficult to determine if it is an improvement or not. I think the thing that is disturbing to me is both these reports raise concerns about one day less in school impacting the nutrition of children. Sad state of affairs that children are dependent on school meals. I know here the districts here push their free lunches hard. But they are honest about the face that they make money on those free lunches.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-calendar-four-day-school-week-overview.aspxhttps://www.brookings.edu/blog/brow...ol-weeks-educational-innovation-or-detriment/

 

[Cheburashka]

I know here the districts here push their free lunches hard. But they are honest about the face that they make money on those free lunches.

For most districts, the student meal program (it's both breakfast & lunch, not just lunch) is a loss leader. It's something they have to provide to get needy students to learn, because hungry students can't focus, but needy students can't pay for them and federal reimbursements don't fully cover meal costs. In addition, many students who don't officially qualify for free lunches don't pay for their school meals, but the schools still have to feed them something even if it's just a cheese sandwich, and that all adds up for a district.

And keep in mind that when I say "needy students", I'm not referring to a stray few students here or there. Many schools have 50% - 90% of their student body qualifying for free and reduced price school meals. And those are the kids getting both meals daily from the school cafeteria so the parent won't have to pay for all of those meals. That's a lot of money the district has to spend, to bridge the reimbursement gap for every meal for every child.

 

[tvguy]

For most districts, the student meal program (it's both breakfast & lunch, not just lunch) is a loss leader. It's something they have to provide to get needy students to learn, because hungry students can't focus, but needy students can't pay for them and federal reimbursements don't fully cover meal costs. In addition, many students who don't officially qualify for free lunches don't pay for their school meals, but the schools still have to feed them something even if it's just a cheese sandwich, and that all adds up for a district.

And keep in mind that when I say "needy students", I'm not referring to a stray few students here or there. Many schools have 50% - 90% of their student body qualifying for free and reduced price school meals. And those are the kids getting both meals daily from the school cafeteria so the parent won't have to pay for all of those meals. That's a lot of money the district has to spend, to bridge the reimbursement gap for every meal for every child.

Well it was a profit center for some schools who have found ways to provide meals that meet the nutrition standards for less than the Federal reimbursement. One district every year pleaded with students to sign up, because half the eligible students won't sign up and apparently don't want the lunches.
But, as of this year, ALL California school children get lunches for free without regard to financial need. Apparently the schools in the cities of New York, Chicago and Boston already provide lunch at no cost to all public school children. https://apnews.com/article/business...n-california-b959171f408b549eb46376998c02ac2c

 

[GreatLakes]

There's a bit of blaming the victim with that line of thinking. There are conditions unrelated to diet & exercise, such as arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and physical injuries that are not one's fault, that make 30 - 40 years of manual labor untenable. Your uncle who is running 60 - 80 miles per week in retirement owes that ability to luck as much as to his own self-care.

Of course that is true but it is still important to take care of your body if you are doing physical work. I'm very surprised by how many people that rely on their bodies abuse them so badly. You should still wear a seat belt even though you still may die in an accident.

 

[RamblingMad]

Zero.

America is too pro business. It's not pro employee.

 

[Cheburashka]

Well it was a profit center for some schools who have found ways to provide meals that meet the nutrition standards for less than the Federal reimbursement.

Those schools are in the small minority.

 

[kdonnel]

But, as of this year, ALL California school children get lunches for free without regard to financial need.

There is a great deal of Covid relief money floating around. As a result lunch has been free at all grade levels for the past two school years in Georgia.

Not only are they free at the school but on planned digital learning days they are delivered. The school buses run their normal routes at a 10am ish time frame and deliver lunch, dinner, and a breakfast for the following day to anyone who is at the bus stop when the bus arrives.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Yeah, school breakfasts and lunches are free in our district this year. They normally aren't. Of course, my DS15 is completely uninterested. My DD26 teaches in a district that's 100% free breakfast and lunch, because it's very poor. Around here, they did the bus delivery of meals over the summer, and the local elementary school also had meal pick-up.

As to a 32-hour work week, it's never going to pass. And it wouldn't help salaried workers who are exempt from those silly little labor laws, anyway. I never got overtime as an engineer. Now, DH sometimes did, but that was only during special times, like power plant outages, when he was expected to work 12-hour days, 6 days a week. It was just paid as straight time, no time and a half or whatever.

 

[tvguy]

Those schools are in the small minority.

I sure can't find any stats, but the federal reimbursement is 5 to 10 cents more here than the lunches cost to prepare.