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

[dez1978]

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 their 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 believe 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.

I'd agree with you that this is largely job/business specific, as was productivity working from home. Unfortunately legislation and most public opinion do not care about specifics, only generalities. One thing I've gotten the last year from many of these posts is that no one really cares how any of this effects a business owner. Whether its minimum wage, hours worked, benefits, anything. No one (except the business owners) cares if it would hurt small businesses to consider 32 hrs full time. No one cares if Joe's down the street can't afford to pay anymore per hour and is barely staying open as it is. The suggestion is "change your business model or shut down, thats just how it is." No one differentiates between Walmart and the local corner store when it comes to these things. And to a point, I get that and respect the point of view. But unless we only want to be left with the Walmarts and Amazons of the world, we have to start supporting and helping the small guys out more

 

[JimMIA]

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

Agree. Every business' financial situation is unique, even within the same industry.

The point I was trying to make, though, is that if anything changes (legislation, competition, supply issues, personnel costs, interest rates, etc, etc.), businesses adjust to the new reality. Business leaders are constantly tinkering, constantly adjusting, to the changing environment.

Unfortunately, in many discussions like this, many people assume business operators would just say, "Oh well..." and do nothing. That's rarely the case.

 

[mrs. magoo]

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.

Snow days do not exist anymore in my district. We have to zoom from our houses. Even if the electricity is out we are still responsible for zooming so I guess I would need to find a public place to zoom from. I am so over my district right now. They just added another student to my caseload. I am now expected to provide specially designed instruction for 61 students everyday. We are 3 special ed teachers short this year so I was asked to pick up an additional class so while it is extra money it means that I have 35 minutes everyday to make all my phone calls and plan. .

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

There are some districts in Colorado who have a 4 day week but it can be a nightmare with childcare. The students attend school for longer days. I teach in the inner city and the thought of having kids walking to and from school in the dark in the winter would keep me up at night. This year has been exhausting so far. My students have not been in school full time for 18 months and many did not attend in person at all last year. The 9th graders act like 7th graders and many of the juniors are acting like freshmen. The skills are so low. I have 5 years to go until retirement but who is counting.

I feel you! I’m an RTI specialist for TK-2nd and aide in a K/1 combo as needed. It’s exhausting and they are so far behind. My K/1s haven’t been in school before at all before this year.

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

I was specifically talking about my school, but I can tell you that most kids are barely handling the school days they have. There is no way they’d survive longer days. The pandemic changed a lot.

 

[mrodgers]

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.

Exactly. Work still needs done. Instead of reducing hours to 32, everywhere will just do pay cuts.

 

[ICF]

Sounds good in theory to most people....until the realize that most likely a 20% paycut comes along with it.

 

[mrodgers]

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.

What was intended is perfect. What we have allowed it to become is what is wrong with the system. Just like everyone crying about Capitalism today, it's our fault, not their fault. We allow it to happen by supporting that which we complain the most about.

 

[JimMIA]

Exactly. Work still needs done. Instead of reducing hours to 32, everywhere will just do pay cuts.

Sure. Or, "We actually don't need you for the full 32 hours, so we're going to transition you to 24 hours, part time, with no benefits."

 

[GreatLakes]

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.

I don't disagree with this other than 40 hours a week is enough to burn an employee out. It just isn't and if it is (general) you are the problem.

Everything else you said about employee happiness and allowing for vacation is 100% true but a matter between the employee and employer.

I always tell the junior employees I mentor that it is a false narrative that an interview has an interviewee and an interviewer. In reality both parties should be interviewing the other. If work life balance or an open vacation policy are important to you that is what you grill your perspective employer on. I've turned down interviews if the initial discussion around non-pay benefits like balance and PTO didn't meet what I was hoping for.

 

[Colleen27]

i can't imagine how employers who are struggling to staff would deal with this. there are SO MANY places offering starting wages (unskilled/no experience needed entry level) of $18+ an hour in our fairly low cost of living area. jobs that include full medical/dental, retirement plans...no takers so days/hours of businesses being open have been dramatically slashed. my oldest just mentioned to me that her employer is down to 9 employees in her job classification which operates 24/7-with a minimum of 2 people needed on site at all times. if they reduced a work week to 32 hours i can't imagine how they would function.

This certainly isn't the time to get support for that kind of change, to be sure! Around me, though, there's a weird dynamic with all the help wanted signs - everyone is hiring and many have raised wages, but few businesses are willing to flex on their hiring practices so they're still dealing with shortages while also having stacks of applicants from people who don't make the cut. If they dropped pot from their drug screens (it is legal here, medically and recreationally), or stopped doing credit checks, or didn't disqualify applicants with any convictions, they might be able to fill those entry-level jobs. But there seems to have been a collective decision made that it is better to shorten hours and operate understaffed than to relax those measures.

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.

A bit of a tangent, but it is a real shame that concerns like this get in the way of schools innovating and looking at least-impact (educationally) ways to tighten the purse strings. The primary function of schools isn't free childcare, and if cutting down on transportation and other operational costs can preserve academic and extracurricular programs that would otherwise be eliminated to balance the budget, that option shouldn't be taken off the table because some parents would struggle to find/pay for childcare for the altered schedule.

 

[GreatLakes]

A bit of a tangent, but it is a real shame that concerns like this get in the way of schools innovating and looking at least-impact (educationally) ways to tighten the purse strings. The primary function of schools isn't free childcare, and if cutting down on transportation and other operational costs can preserve academic and extracurricular programs that would otherwise be eliminated to balance the budget, that option shouldn't be taken off the table because some parents would struggle to find/pay for childcare for the altered schedule.

I don't think anyone thinks the primary function of a school is child care but it isn't an accident that the school week and work week closely line up for most standard jobs. The schools are part of an echo system and need to operate in it. The pandemic showed us how changes in the model of education delivery significantly impacted the work force, specifically females in the work force. The people in the school district need to do a better job of funding so nothing has to be cut. Around me that means voting for levies. I've never voted against a school levy, at least not as an adult that knew better.

ETA: I'm talking about younger kids here that need a parent at home with them. If you are talking about junior high and high schools, which locally are where extracurriculars get cut the most, then it is less if an issue. Once a kid is old enough to be home alone it doesn't matter as much.

 

[ronandannette]

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.

If it turned out anywhere near as efficient as our Parliament, then the answer is a resounding NO.

 

[Buzz Rules]

If it turned out anywhere near as efficient as our Parliament, then the answer is a resounding NO.

Our Congress and your Parliament should have a picnic one day and discuss productive legislation. Then they should make a bet on who can pass the most amount of bills into laws first. It would be the most positive outcome in 100 years.

 

[dez1978]

I don't disagree with this other than 40 hours a week is enough to burn an employee out. It just isn't and if it is (general) you are the problem.

I was thinking this same thing. 40 hrs a week isn't really that much unless perhaps you are in the medical field and those 40 hrs are dealing with dying people. That would be a lot. But in general 40 hrs a week should not be enough to cause the kind of burn out being referred to here. Now if you are working 60+ hrs a week sure. Now if you have medical issues or something thats different.

 

[mrodgers]

I was thinking this same thing. 40 hrs a week isn't really that much unless perhaps you are in the medical field and those 40 hrs are dealing with dying people. That would be a lot. But in general 40 hrs a week should not be enough to cause the kind of burn out being referred to here. Now if you are working 60+ hrs a week sure. Now if you have medical issues or something thats different.

Or the people who work in extreme heat. People who are suspended in the rafters all day long. People who spend all day on their toes standing on ladders all day. People who are hanging upside down in an enclosed vessel all day. People who have to carry a lot of cinder blocks doing massively physical labor. In reality, 40 hours a week isn't really that much for the minority that are doing white collar work compared to those doing more physical labor in an hour than most white collar workers do in a week. I wouldn't say 40 hours is a cake walk for anyone, but that's also why it's called "work".

 

[GreatLakes]

Or the people who work in extreme heat. People who are suspended in the rafters all day long. People who spend all day on their toes standing on ladders all day. People who are hanging upside down in an enclosed vessel all day. People who have to carry a lot of cinder blocks doing massively physical labor. In reality, 40 hours a week isn't really that much for the minority that are doing white collar work compared to those doing more physical labor in an hour than most white collar workers do in a week. I wouldn't say 40 hours is a cake walk for anyone, but that's also why it's called "work".

The 40 hour work week was established by the trades and factory unions and have been the norm for around a hundred years. Some physical work has been largly automated and while brick laying, as an example, is hard work it isn't harder work in 2021 than it was in 1949. I'm not sure why we are all of a sudden trying to shorten that work week or move the posts on OT all of a sudden.

 

[dez1978]

Or the people who work in extreme heat. People who are suspended in the rafters all day long. People who spend all day on their toes standing on ladders all day. People who are hanging upside down in an enclosed vessel all day. People who have to carry a lot of cinder blocks doing massively physical labor. In reality, 40 hours a week isn't really that much for the minority that are doing white collar work compared to those doing more physical labor in an hour than most white collar workers do in a week. I wouldn't say 40 hours is a cake walk for anyone, but that's also why it's called "work".

When I think of burnout though, I guess I'm thinking of doing above and beyond what your normal duties are for so long that you are just burnt out on it. Those jobs you mention absolutely are hard physical work, but the people that do them are generally in the physical shape to do that 40 hrs a week. And those are generally seasonal jobs in a large portion of the country, so they have larger blocks of time off. Again, I'm speaking in general terms. Of course there will be those who work all year, or who aren't in the best physical shape to do the job they do. But like I said, when I consider burn out, I don't think of your normal 40 hrs a week worth of work causing that for probably 90% of the jobs. And if the normal 40 hrs does cause you burnout, maybe you don't fit well with that job. Like working in a prison for instance (which I did for 15+ years) Not everyone has the personality to do that job. Not everyone can handle being cussed at and called names and threatened every day. It takes a certain type of personality to work in those types of places. And if you don't have that personality, it's going to be hard for you and that job just isn't a good fit for you. But for most of the people who do it and have the right personality for it, 40 hr/week isn't going to burn them out. Right now tho they are all working 60-80 hrs a week and a job that they used to love (or like at least) has them burned out bc of all the extra hours and lack of staff and extra work thats being put on them.

 

[mrodgers]

The 40 hour work week was established by the trades and factory unions and have been the norm for around a hundred years. Some physical work has been largly automated and while brick laying, as an example, is hard work it isn't harder work in 2021 than it was in 1949. I'm not sure why we are all of a sudden trying to shorten that work week or move the posts on OT all of a sudden.

That's because we're not allowed to talk about it here

 

[mrodgers]

When I think of burnout though, I guess I'm thinking of doing above and beyond what your normal duties are for so long that you are just burnt out on it. Those jobs you mention absolutely are hard physical work, but the people that do them are generally in the physical shape to do that 40 hrs a week. And those are generally seasonal jobs in a large portion of the country, so they have larger blocks of time off. Again, I'm speaking in general terms. Of course there will be those who work all year, or who aren't in the best physical shape to do the job they do. But like I said, when I consider burn out, I don't think of your normal 40 hrs a week worth of work causing that for probably 90% of the jobs. And if the normal 40 hrs does cause you burnout, maybe you don't fit well with that job. Like working in a prison for instance (which I did for 15+ years) Not everyone has the personality to do that job. Not everyone can handle being cussed at and called names and threatened every day. It takes a certain type of personality to work in those types of places. And if you don't have that personality, it's going to be hard for you and that job just isn't a good fit for you. But for most of the people who do it and have the right personality for it, 40 hr/week isn't going to burn them out. Right now tho they are all working 60-80 hrs a week and a job that they used to love (or like at least) has them burned out bc of all the extra hours and lack of staff and extra work thats being put on them.

Your response of they are generally seasonal only relates to one of the examples I put forth. Also I look around at those close to me that are doing all of those things, other than the brick layer, and no, very few are in the physical shape to do these jobs. I certainly am not, nor the guy I'm currently working with and his bad knees, or 90% of our overweight maintenance guys or the ones who have various non-visible ailments. But all we as a society do now is take one particular selection of people and virtue signal our outrage over what they are going through. First it was the poor fast food, restaurant, and grocery store workers who were out there risking their lives to provide your essentials. What about those who risked their lives and couldn't stay home because you (general population you) wanted fancy new clothes or wanted to build a new patio while you were off, or bought a new car, furniture, and multitude of other things that everyone was out mingling with everyone else more than normal at a time they were screaming for everyone to stay home? Why only the restaurant owners then. Why only the medical workers now? Who cares about the restaurant workers now? I don't know a single person who was out of work for more than 3 weeks, every person I know were risking their lives going to work and not a single one of those people were doing anything "essential" as the narrative was.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I was thinking this same thing. 40 hrs a week isn't really that much unless perhaps you are in the medical field and those 40 hrs are dealing with dying people. That would be a lot. But in general 40 hrs a week should not be enough to cause the kind of burn out being referred to here. Now if you are working 60+ hrs a week sure. Now if you have medical issues or something thats different.

Burnout in the workplace is generally NOT referred to just hours worked, the amount of hours you work can directly contribute to it but it's not the definition of it. I can see how that might make you view the situation a certain way if you are only thinking about it as in "meh 40 hours ain't nothin'"