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

[sam_gordon]

One of the biggest differences I've seen between hourly and salaried is how you use your benefits. Most especially when it comes to PTO/Vacation. There tends to be much more flexibility for salaried than hourly. My husband has 10+ weeks of vacation (actually he probably has more than that) stored up for a reason. But also if my husband worked 39.5 hours one week and 40.5 hours another week it all balanced out in the end. That tends to not be the same with hourly employees.

FWIW, I'm now salary. I spent many years hourly (with the same company, but various owners). PTO/Vacation was treated the same. You get 'x' days based on your length of time with the company. It does not carry over regardless of your exempt status. In fact, all of our benefits (insurance, 401k, time off, etc) are the same regardless of exempt status.

What is different is yes, I can leave early if need be and not be docked for that pay. At the same time, I might be expected to do work during my "off" hours (whether answering emails, phone calls, going in, whatever). I did find out earlier this year(?) that as long as a salaried employee shows up and does SOME work, it qualifies as a full, complete work day. Using my judgement, if there's nothing that needs my attention at work and I want to go home after lunch, I can. I can go to the doctor in the morning and show up late to work, no penalty.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

So shouldn't they factor that into their decision? What you posted earlier applies to ALL workers. When you take any job, it's your responsibility to agree to the pay and the work hours. If you don't like a situation, you walk.

Benefits and workload can change at any time. My previous employer actually gave out the insurance premium cost, employee, and employer portion in a handy table. Over the 5 years I was there they shifted more and more financial responsibility to the employer portion which totaled to an 8% pay cut.

True, I can quit (I did) but it’s not always as easy as “you knew what you signed up for”

Right, as a salaried employee with paid vacation, you get to NOT come to work and you get paid anyway. There would be no expectation to be "paid out" for vacation time you never took. That's on you if you didn't take them.

Hourly employees have to "earn and use up" vacation time, and if they don't have enough and want days off, they take them unpaid.

Salaried positions are generally a one way street. If you don’t have enough work for 40 hours, they’ll find you work to fill 40+ hours.

There are some employers that have gone to the “unlimited” vacation model but I think most are still on a traditional accrual system. We have to use our vacation within the calendar year and rolling days over takes an act of god.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

FWIW, I'm now salary. I spent many years hourly (with the same company, but various owners). PTO/Vacation was treated the same. You get 'x' days based on your length of time with the company. It does not carry over regardless of your exempt status. In fact, all of our benefits (insurance, 401k, time off, etc) are the same regardless of exempt status.

What is different is yes, I can leave early if need be and not be docked for that pay. At the same time, I might be expected to do work during my "off" hours (whether answering emails, phone calls, going in, whatever). I did find out earlier this year(?) that as long as a salaried employee shows up and does SOME work, it qualifies as a full, complete work day. Using my judgement, if there's nothing that needs my attention at work and I want to go home after lunch, I can. I can go to the doctor in the morning and show up late to work, no penalty.

Yup seems pretty similar, the reason my husband has so much time is because he doesn't have to use it to do an appointment just to do the appointment, if he's running late he doesn't have to take PTO to make up the time, if he wants to leave at 4 one day instead of 5 it's okay. While it probably won't work out because it seems like things are ramping up last month he was talking about if thing were slow enough he may take several weeks off from work something of which I never could have done and maintained a job. But there are other times where he's home and it's 7pm but the project manager needs X taken care of immediately. And when he's onsite you really don't get to use vacation or you may be granted a day here and there and you may be working 65-70hours per week thankfully he's not onsite and doesn't have immediate plans to need to be (it'd be in Canada anyways and well that wouldn't be easy to visit him like it was in TX, MD or CA).

 

[sam_gordon]

Benefits and workload can change at any time. My previous employer actually gave out the insurance premium cost, employee, and employer portion in a handy table. Over the 5 years I was there they shifted more and more financial responsibility to the employer portion which totaled to an 8% pay cut.

True, I can quit (I did) but it’s not always as easy as “you knew what you signed up for”

Maybe I've just worked for good companies, but we've always had at least two months notice of insurance premium cost changes (and I think they've gone up every year of the 30 years I've been here). It's not like they said "next week you're paying for 2% more of your insurance!". So yes, I did "know what I signed up for".

Salaried positions are generally a one way street. If you don’t have enough work for 40 hours, they’ll find you work to fill 40+ hours.

Not here.

There are some employers that have gone to the “unlimited” vacation model but I think most are still on a traditional accrual system. We have to use our vacation within the calendar year and rolling days over takes an act of god.

um, yea, that's what I said. The point is there's no difference in vacation/PTO policies between hourly & salary. You get 'x' days in the year based on how many years you've been with the company. Use it in the year it's issued, no rolling over.

 

[Cheburashka]

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

In most places it's less, especially for breakfast.

https://educationdata.org/school-lunch-debt#:~:text=A total of 10% of,10% of their annual expenses.

 

[Cheburashka]

Because this bill is not about overworking salaried people who are getting benefits. It's about making things fair for hourly employees who are being overworked without benefits.

Most employees working 32 - 40 hours per week are already getting benefits. And working 32 - 40 hours per week is not "overworked". 60+ hours is overworked.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

Maybe I've just worked for good companies, but we've always had at least two months notice of insurance premium cost changes (and I think they've gone up every year of the 30 years I've been here). It's not like they said "next week you're paying for 2% more of your insurance!". So yes, I did "know what I signed up for".

We got months notice but it's just one of those things you don't expect when comparing offers between companies. I actually joined the company in August and was hit with an insurance increase before my first raise... which felt a bit odd.

I'm one of the weird ones who requests the full benefits package info with an offer letter though so I can make an informed decision.

um, yea, that's what I said. The point is there's no difference in vacation/PTO policies between hourly & salary. You get 'x' days in the year based on how many years you've been with the company. Use it in the year it's issued, no rolling over.

This was a reply to DLgal, not you.

 

[goofyernmost]

It was only introduced two months ago and we haven't heard much about it in that time, but all signs from those who have experimented with the 32-hour model say they find few downsides to it, and indeed that it increases both productivity and employee morale in the workplace while cutting down on operational and material costs, and employees have reported a better sense of work-life balance, having more time to spend with their families.

U.S. lawmaker proposes 'groundbreaking legislation' reducing workweek to 32 hours (msn.com)

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?

Does not have the chance of a snowball in hell. The rich will not want it and they will get what they want. It leads to many extra expenses that currently don't exist. Like O/T for over 32 hours, more people falling under the paid benefit programs. It naturally would need higher wages to provide a living wage so, again overtime would suffer. It would also require a larger staff, more paper work, more hiring hassle and generally a major PITA. Someday, maybe when all the sheep are put back in their pen, but not now. The the Odds would be 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 against it.

 

[Kathryn Merteuil]

I doubt it will happen, but I would like for it to.