Four Day Work Week

[srblanco7]

There's a bill in the California legislature that would shorten the standard work week from 40 hrs/wk to 32 hrs/wk. The rule would apply to companies with more than 500 employees. Hours in excess of 32 would be paid at time and a half. Furthermore, employers would be prohibited from reducing workers' current pay rate, so they'd be paid the same for working 20% less. In theory, this would be offset by productivity gains (e.g., less burnout) but business profits would potentially be burdened by having to retain additional workers (and the associated costs for training, benefits, etc) to accomplish the same output.

While I personally wouldn't mind being paid the same for a 32 hour work week , seems likely only to accelerate the exodus of businesses from CA to other less progressive states. Not intending at all to elevate this as a political referendum on the CA legislature, but am interested in everyone's thoughts as it pertains to their work and/or business ownership.

[disneysteve]

I've heard of places switching to 4 10-hr days. That makes sense as it reduces commuting time and gives people an extra day off each week.

I haven't heard of cutting to 32 hours. I'm not sure how that would work, especially if they have to be paid the same amount. Companies would also have to hire a ton of new people to fill in those other 8 hours. They're already struggling to fill positions with low unemployment and the pandemic-related labor shortage so I don't know where they're going to suddenly find all of those new people.

What is this supposed to accomplish? Obviously it's good for a worker who can earn 40 hrs of pay in only 32 hrs but other than that, I don't see how it benefits anybody in the big picture? It won't be good for employers at all. Businesses may be forced to reduce operating hours because they no longer have enough workers to stay open (which is already happening many places due to the existing labor shortage). Operating costs will go up sharply. It sounds like a losing plan all around.

[kork13]

Agreed with DS -- the way they're going about it is dumb and short-sighted (very Californian).

I'd love a 4-day work week. I already do 9+ hr days, 5+ days/wk... So 4x 10hr days/wk would be a dream. I only wonder how far-reaching that would go? What about school children, for example? If my kids were also 4 days of school per week (because their teachers were), then I'd be able to get far less done on that extra day. And would that drive a longer school year (shorter summer break) to make up for the lessons lost?

[SavingBucks]

Unionized workforces, or those with collective bargaining agreements, are exempt.

[rennigade]

If California politicians thought it up, it's usually a terrible idea.

A 4 day work week should be mandatory for everyone at this point. Everyone wants to go green and save the planet, how much carbon emissions would this save by 1 less commute day a week? This goes to show you that the climate movement is all about who wins in politics. They couldn't care less about the environment. They care about a W..

[disneysteve]

A 4 day work week should be mandatory for everyone at this point. Everyone wants to go green and save the planet, how much carbon emissions would this save by 1 less commute day a week? This goes to show you that the climate movement is all about who wins in politics. They couldn't care less about the environment. They care about a W..

I'm wondering what types of businesses this would apply to and would all businesses have to adopt the same 4 days? If it's a service business like retail or a restaurant chain, you still need people working every day. If it's an office sort of business, you still need to be able to respond to clients and customers on the 5th day (or 6th and 7th depending on the nature of the business). It's not like the world will just stop moving on the off day. I really don't understand how this would work.

[bjl584]

Seems like a good idea on paper, but I doubt it will get much traction.
I just don't see this working without a lot of companies packing up and leaving.

[disneysteve]

Seems like a good idea on paper

How so? What about this sounds like a good idea? I mean, obviously doing 32 hours of work and getting paid for 40 sounds great, but that's never really going to happen because I'm sure companies will adjust things accordingly, delay raises, eliminate bonuses, or do whatever else they can to offset that.

[ua_guy]

I'm not sure California has a perfect answer here. I'm also not sure the American approach to work is healthy, nor am I convinced it serves a greater good for most people. The "standard" work week was created long ago, and it too could change someday. And maybe it should.

[disneysteve]

I'm also not sure the American approach to work is healthy, nor am I convinced it serves a greater good for most people. The "standard" work week was created long ago, and it too could change someday. And maybe it should.

There are certainly a lot of things wrong with Americans' approach to work but I don't know that this proposal solves them. The shift toward remote work brought on by COVID has definitely helped, though. It's taken millions of cars off the road and given people an extra couple of hours in their day, saved them money, saved their employers money, increased productivity, and increased employee satisfaction with their jobs. The companies that have started requiring people to come back to the office 5 days a week are getting a lot of push back and seeing people leave for other jobs that have made remote work permanent. I don't think we've seen the end of this transition. Obviously not all jobs are suited for remote work but those that are really need to embrace it.

[ua_guy]

There are certainly a lot of things wrong with Americans' approach to work but I don't know that this proposal solves them.

I think the takeaway is there is a strong current, a tide, that will bring change to how and when we work in the US. We saw it with working from home. Employers were forced to abandon the rigid ideas of productivity and supervision for those positions where doing so made sense. The positive benefits for both the employee and employer are cascading.

What if "full time" in the US is shortened to 32 hours/week and people are paid the same as they would for working 40? What would that do for people's quality of life? Would they spend more time with their kids? Might they have more time to focus on their health, their families, and personal interests?

I don't see how shortening the definition of "full time" is any more offensive than an employer paying an employee for 40 hours per week, knowing full well they expect their employees to work 60+, and not paying them anything additional. That's perfectly legal, and the sick part is that people feel a sense of pride for working long hours like that. I mean, really? This is the tilt and spin in the employee/employer relationship that has been going on for WAY too long.

[james.hendrickson]

[QUOTE=ua_guy;n732044]

I don't see how shortening the definition of "full time" is any more offensive than an employer paying an employee for 40 hours per week, knowing full well they expect their employees to work 60+, and not paying them anything additional. That's perfectly legal, and the sick part is that people feel a sense of pride for working long hours like that. I mean, really? This is the tilt and spin in the employee/employer relationship that has been going on for WAY too long.

[/QUOTE=ua_guy;n732044]

Ua_guy - if an employee is on salary, by definition they're not compensated on an hourly basis. They're compensated on annual basis, with compensation provided at specific intervals. The agreement in most of these cases isn't if you work an hour you get x number of dollars. So, its not clear to me why this would be offensive. Can you say more about why you object to this?

[disneysteve]

Ua_guy - if an employee is on salary, by definition they're not compensated on an hourly basis. They're compensated on annual basis, with compensation provided at specific intervals. The agreement in most of these cases isn't if you work an hour you get x number of dollars. So, its not clear to me why this would be offensive. Can you say more about why you object to this? [/QUOTE]

You didn't direct the question to me but I'll answer. At my job we are salaried but that salary is based on an hourly rate. My pay stubs show I worked 48 hours at a rate of $125/hr. The problem is if I actually worked 49 hours or 52 hours I'm still only paid for 48. If we get busy toward the end of the day, I can easily end up being there for an hour after "closing time" because I can't leave until everything is done but I'm not compensated for that extra time. While not a problem for me, it's often an issue for some of my younger female colleagues who need to pick up their kids from child care by a certain time. Getting stuck at work for an extra hour or more creates issues. Employers can't just ignore those sorts of realities.

[james.hendrickson]

disneysteve - I think the exact point here is that it depends on your labor contract. If you're on hourly, you're on hourly, if you're on salary there isn't the expectation that you should work just 40 hours per week.


In any event, this thread is about the proposed California law. I'll speak to that point. The law is an excellent idea if California wants to make itself a less competitive and poorer place. It would effectively make all the companies subject to it 20% less efficient in terms of the amount of labor they can utilize. This means any good or service produced by that company would be effectively 20% higher than its competitors, rendering it economically impractical in some cases to say in business.

[scfr]

It sounds like an elitist plan dreamed up by those who've never worked a job where physical presence and labor is required. Your house is on fire? Grab a garden hose. You're having a heart attack? Sure hope your spouse knows CPR. Welcome to our posh hotel - there are the luggage carts, feel free to help yourself to one to haul your bags up to your room. You're hungry? Well, those seasonal 40 hour a week packing line jobs got cut back to 20, and you know our crews are doing their best to juggle multiple jobs, but here's a ladder and bucket and we have a great price on pick your own today!