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

[wfjny]

One of my customers switched to a 4 day / 10 hour work schedule. From what I have heard they love it and having 3 day weekends is Amazing. But of course they are still getting 40 hours a week in pay. I would love personally to do that.

Years ago, I know many companies in Houston went to a 9/80 plan. Basically 8 hours in 9 days. Half the company was off every other Friday.

What the employees say:
Three day weekend every other weekend was great, but you can only afford so much vacation
Started scheduling lots of things on Fridays that take twice as long to do on a Saturday (Haircut, Bank, Doctor, Oil Change)...

What the employers say:
Every employee must have a backup. No single point of failure. Also helps out on vacation coverage.
Seems to make employees happy
Less sick days being taken, as again users can schedule those various appointments on their day off.

It sounded great to me, but I was in New York, and my company did not agree with me

 

[mrodgers]

That would really hurt a lot of small business owners who are barely hanging on as it is...as someone who has to make payroll for 25-40 employees I've had some nail biting moments over the years. And if they go under, then those employees are no longer employed -

It's all part of the plan. Unfortunately, we can't talk about it here.

Yes, that's the trouble with these "simple" solutions. They assume that there would be no response at all from businesses, and no unintended consequences.

It depends on who "they" are that you are talking about. "They" are working on a plan and the consequences are not "unintended."

 

[ronandannette]

It isn't different.

Pushing paper a little harder? You must not understand how hard a lot of white-collar people work.

I am one... My point was that certain roles lend themselves to compressed work weeks and others don't.

 

[2China2009]

I have never worked 40hrs. I work just enough to get benefits and pick up extra shifts if I want to.

 

[Allison]

I am one... My point was that certain roles lend themselves to compressed work weeks and others don't.

I guess I am around people who are working really hard with a lot to do. They aren't standing around the watercooler or needing to push the paper a little harder. They have more to do than they can get done now.

 

[JimMIA]

Years ago, I know many companies in Houston went to a 9/80 plan. Basically 8 hours in 9 days. Half the company was off every other Friday.

What the employees say:
Three day weekend every other weekend was great, but you can only afford so much vacation
Started scheduling lots of things on Fridays that take twice as long to do on a Saturday (Haircut, Bank, Doctor, Oil Change)...

What the employers say:
Every employee must have a backup. No single point of failure. Also helps out on vacation coverage.
Seems to make employees happy
Less sick days being taken, as again users can schedule those various appointments on their day off.

It sounded great to me, but I was in New York, and my company did not agree with me

The US Government has that schedule; it's called the 5-4-9 schedule. 9 hours a day for five days the first week of the pay period, 9 hours a day for three days the second week, one day at 8 hours, and then a 3 day weekend. Sometimes it's just a regular 2 day weekend with a non-consecutive day off.

But they also have "Federal Friday" in some places, where people "work remotely" on Fridays. They had that for years in the Park Service, long before Covid.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

It won't pass because nothing that makes sense and/or helps the middle class ever actually gets passed.

 

[GreatLakes]

There are many school district that already do this in the U.S. It saves money on operational costs.

That would be terrible. I don't want to arrange for child care one a week during school hours. I hate snow days for that reason as well. I personally don't care, I can just work from home, but so many people don't get a snow day from work when schools close.

I'd also not like to start paying staff overtime at 32 hours. It would really derail my budget.

 

[Foxhound3857]

That would be terrible. I don't want to arrange for child care one a week during school hours. I hate snow days for that reason as well. I personally don't care, I can just work from home, but so many people don't get a snow day from work when schools close.

I'd also not like to start paying staff overtime at 32 hours. It would really derail my budget.

The upside is that it would reduce burnout for employees working 40 hours a week or more, especially the ones that have had a hard time taking time off for vacation or just personal time for their families. Burnout from working too many hours is a huge contributor to employee turnover, especially in places like warehouses where the nature of the work and the hours expected of you can really wear on a person.

At some point employee happiness has to factor into a businesses decisions, not just maximum profit at the expense of all else, including employee retention.

 

[Sinder]

Again though, it doesn't mean that everyone will automatically be reduced to a 32 hour week. It just means that the threshold for overtime will be reduced to 32 instead of 40, so any hours worked over 32 would be considered overtime. Likewise, that threshold would also define eligibility for full-time benefits and things like 401k.

And that doesn't mean employers won't cut their full time employees down to 32 hours in order to avoid paying out OT.

 

[Buzz Rules]

This won’t pass. Between the debt ceiling and 4 trillion dollar plan being argued endlessly in Congress now, I don’t expect Congress to pass anything relevant until early next year. It’s times like this that I wonder if a parliamentary system would have worked better in the USA instead.

 

[JimMIA]

And that doesn't mean employers won't cut their full time employees down to 32 hours in order to avoid paying out OT.

Or, more likely, hire two 20-hour part-timers with no benefits at all -- giving the employer the same 40 hours, and lower cost instead of higher cost.

 

[Sinder]

Or, more likely, hire two 20-hour part-timers with no benefits at all -- giving the employer the same 40 hours, and lower cost instead of higher cost.

My dd works for a non-profit, they simply could not function if they had to pay 8 hours of overtime to to all their full time employees, they also could not function with less employees so the would probably do exactly what you said. In turn my dd and the others would have to quit and find another job or take on a second job adding to their stress and job burnout. For them it would be a no win situation.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I read this and didn't see it as a win at all. I was thinking that lowering the threshold would hurt people and help the budget. In my mind it could be sold as a plus to get support but in reality push seniors and disabled people who work to cover a meager cost of living over the limit of "substantial earnings" and get a whole lot of needy people pushed off SSDI etc.

Right now if 40 hrs is full time the set point for "substantial earnings" is somewhere around $1K so benefits plus the income doesn't even cover many medicines and decent housing etc. so if the full time hours count is dropped I'd imagine this would justify lowering the interdependencies. Wolf in sheep's clothing IMO.

I agree that employers would cull their workforce in response.

 

[JimMIA]

The fantasy that employers would develop absolutely NO response at all to a big increase in their payroll expense is amusing, but not at all realistic.

 

[tzolkin]

Perhaps what can be done instead of reducing the work week at a Federal level to 32 hours is doing things like Federally defining what full-time is as often benefits are based on full-time vs part-time.

This is what I assumed was meant when I saw this post. Most people seem to think it means that all jobs will go to only working 32 hours per week. But I had thought it just meant that 32 hours would now be considered “full time”. Not that everyone in every job would work only 32 hours, but it would be an option that would still qualify them for benefits.

I manage a small company. None of our employees are scheduled 5 days per week (except for me). Different people work 40, 36, or 32 hours (in a span of 3-4 days per week). All are considered full time and get the same benefits. The people who work fewer hours just get paid a prorated salary based on the hours they have agreed to.

They really seem to love it. Especially when it comes to vacation time bc it allows longer vacations.

This works out well for our employees too. They use much less PTO because they can sandwich vacation days in with the days they would have off in a regular week.

There are many school district that already do this in the U.S. It saves money on operational costs.

This is true. There are lots of creative options, but most people tend to just dismiss ideas because “that’s not how we have always done it”.

 

[JimMIA]

This is what I assumed was meant when I saw this post. Most people seem to think it means that all jobs will go to only working 32 hours per week. But I had thought it just meant that 32 hours would now be considered “full time”. Not that everyone in every job would work only 32 hours, but it would be an option that would still qualify them for benefits.

Regardless of how we parse the words, the net effect is to increase the employer's payroll expense with no corresponding increase in production.

Whether the increased cost is from paying overtime or paying for benefits to people who previously did not qualify (which ain't happening in the real world!), the effect is the same -- increased cost.

The employer must adjust somehow for that increase.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Regardless of how we parse the words, the net effect is to increase the employer's payroll expense with no corresponding increase in production.

Whether the increased cost is from paying overtime or paying for benefits to people who previously did not qualify (which ain't happening in the real world!), the effect is the same -- increased cost.

The employer must adjust somehow for that increase.

In some ways I wouldn't feel about about that burden on the employer. It would depend on if that employer is the type that realistically can't take on that additional costs without aid/program/etc or if it's the type of employer that would just reduce hours (especially to people who had a certain number of hours and theirs were cut) to avoid it which is often a shady thing to do. As far as production that's been debatable and I feel is highly specific to what one's employment is because contrary to belief reduction in hours does not mean inherently reduction in productivity it just really depends. It's like how businesses assumed there would be a loss of production just by the nature of people working from home and across the board that wasn't the end result.

**corrected words

 

[Foxhound3857]

Warehouses better up that break time then, because 10 minutes is not enough for the kind of work we do, especially given how far of a walk it is to the breakroom. Breaks should be 15 minutes at the absolute minimum.

 

[easyas123]

Warehouses better up that break time then, because 10 minutes is not enough for the kind of work we do, especially given how far of a walk it is to the breakroom. Breaks should be 15 minutes at the absolute minimum.

Yeah..but not every workplace is a warehouse. Not even close.