5 ms·

Why would you pay them the same? Hire 14% more workers, work them 35h instead of 40h, and pay them 14% less each. Costs the same, doesn't it?

by aianus 11y ago

e12e 11y ago
How will they afford housing? Pay their student loans? Buy food? Besides, if they generate the same value - why would you pay them less?
- aianus 11y ago
  Every full-time job I've ever had in the US paid very well but there was no time to spend any of it because I was at work all the time. Anyways, if your budget is that tight an extra 6 hours a week would let you live further from work / drive an uber / cook more / whatever to fill in the gaps. > Besides, if they generate the same value - why would you pay them less? The parent to my comment was referring to shift work like nurses where you can't generate the same value in less time -- somebody has to be there.
riffraff 11y ago
Many people will not be happy to get a 14% wage cut, and would prefer working longer. Also, firms have a tendency to just require people to work harder/overtime rather than hiring more. Finally, retirement benefits decrease if they are awarded based on how much income taxes you payed, which not everyone is comfortable with. That is why projects to have a legal 35 hours week usually have extra stuff attached to them, such as integration from special government funds.
- e12e 11y ago
  [W]hen the normal is that both adults in a household works, that's a [ed: 28%] pay cut (or a 72% increase, if one goes down to 6 hour workday, and the other one gets a job as a result of the introduction of a six hour work day). In the context of the public sector, one is mostly shuffling money around (welfare vs pay/pension) -- but with tangible health effects: for better or worse, very simply, people are generally better off if they have a job, if the job isn't too hard for them (social aspects of having co-workers, sense of worth etc). I'm not sure about Sweden, but Norway in practice (through union regulation) have a 37.5 hour work week. And a six-hour day then means 30 hour week. Some sectors do have a 40 hour work week (8 * 5), but also here six hour day, would generally mean 30 hour week. In Norway hourly compensation is still not the norm (except for overtime) - nominal hourly wage is based on a yearly pay divided by 1950 hours (37.5 * 52 - including holyday pay). I think the idea of paying people per hour worked is flawed in general, even if it seems good on the surface. You pay people to be an employee, to use their skills to help a business or organization succeed. I don't think you can often gauge a persons value by hours worked, and it makes for odd incentives (eg: you get paid more, the slower you work). Again from the perspective of the public sector, I think, in general, that one wants people to have a "full time" job, and pay taxes accordingly -- which implies they should be paid accordingly. That is part of the premise of a six hour work day -- that you can get "a days work" done in six hours, that working more isn't really good for you or your employer in general. Things like sick leave, efficiency when at work, years of a life that can be spent working -- all points towards six hours making more sense than eight. We probably do need more data -- we have much more experience with eight hour days/40 hour weeks than with six hour days. I also think it's important to avid the "one size fits all trap" -- not all work is the same. But that also means that just because Ford thought 8 hours was great for factory workers, it might not be the best model for most modern work.
pvdebbe 11y ago
The rhetoric that I have read on the opinions is that the workers should still be paid for 40 hours. It is debatable if the loss of productivity is that pronounced, but in overall this scheme would be more expensive to all parties. Let's hope it's not the case.

Why would you pay them the same? Hire 14% more workers, work them 35h instead of 40h, and pay them 14% less each. Costs the same, doesn't it?

by aianus 11y ago

Why would you pay them the same? Hire 14% more workers, work them 35h instead of 40h, and pay them 14% less each. Costs the same, doesn't it?

e12e 11y ago

How will they afford housing? Pay their student loans? Buy food? Besides, if they generate the same value - why would you pay them less?

aianus 11y ago
Every full-time job I've ever had in the US paid very well but there was no time to spend any of it because I was at work all the time. Anyways, if your budget is that tight an extra 6 hours a week would let you live further from work / drive an uber / cook more / whatever to fill in the gaps. > Besides, if they generate the same value - why would you pay them less? The parent to my comment was referring to shift work like nurses where you can't generate the same value in less time -- somebody has to be there.

riffraff 11y ago

Many people will not be happy to get a 14% wage cut, and would prefer working longer. Also, firms have a tendency to just require people to work harder/overtime rather than hiring more. Finally, retirement benefits decrease if they are awarded based on how much income taxes you payed, which not everyone is comfortable with. That is why projects to have a legal 35 hours week usually have extra stuff attached to them, such as integration from special government funds.

e12e 11y ago
[W]hen the normal is that both adults in a household works, that's a [ed: 28%] pay cut (or a 72% increase, if one goes down to 6 hour workday, and the other one gets a job as a result of the introduction of a six hour work day). In the context of the public sector, one is mostly shuffling money around (welfare vs pay/pension) -- but with tangible health effects: for better or worse, very simply, people are generally better off if they have a job, if the job isn't too hard for them (social aspects of having co-workers, sense of worth etc). I'm not sure about Sweden, but Norway in practice (through union regulation) have a 37.5 hour work week. And a six-hour day then means 30 hour week. Some sectors do have a 40 hour work week (8 * 5), but also here six hour day, would generally mean 30 hour week. In Norway hourly compensation is still not the norm (except for overtime) - nominal hourly wage is based on a yearly pay divided by 1950 hours (37.5 * 52 - including holyday pay). I think the idea of paying people per hour worked is flawed in general, even if it seems good on the surface. You pay people to be an employee, to use their skills to help a business or organization succeed. I don't think you can often gauge a persons value by hours worked, and it makes for odd incentives (eg: you get paid more, the slower you work). Again from the perspective of the public sector, I think, in general, that one wants people to have a "full time" job, and pay taxes accordingly -- which implies they should be paid accordingly. That is part of the premise of a six hour work day -- that you can get "a days work" done in six hours, that working more isn't really good for you or your employer in general. Things like sick leave, efficiency when at work, years of a life that can be spent working -- all points towards six hours making more sense than eight. We probably do need more data -- we have much more experience with eight hour days/40 hour weeks than with six hour days. I also think it's important to avid the "one size fits all trap" -- not all work is the same. But that also means that just because Ford thought 8 hours was great for factory workers, it might not be the best model for most modern work.

pvdebbe 11y ago

The rhetoric that I have read on the opinions is that the workers should still be paid for 40 hours. It is debatable if the loss of productivity is that pronounced, but in overall this scheme would be more expensive to all parties. Let's hope it's not the case.