5 ms·

You didn't really explain how the American approach was absurd. Also, 7.5 hours seems extremely arbitrary. Why pick that number of hours? Why not 4 hours? Why n

You didn't really explain how the American approach was absurd. Also, 7.5 hours seems extremely arbitrary. Why pick that number of hours? Why not 4 hours? Why not 9?

gknoy 9y ago
For non-salary workers, in your "8 hour" work day there is a certain mandated amount of break time. X minutes per Y hours, for example, plus time for lunch. They might have taken 8 hours and subtracted two 15-minute breaks. I'm not sure if the 8 hours is intended to be (8h + X break time), or (8h - X break time); I thought it was the former, but but might be mistaken. That's probably where the GP got their 7.5 from.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  In the USA, there is no federal requirement for break time.
  - gknoy 9y ago
    How true! However, there are some at state levels. For example [0]: (2018) Under California law (which is much more generous to employees than federal law), if you are a non-exempt worker, you are entitled to meal and rest breaks: a 30-minute meal break if you work more than 5 hours in a workday, and 10 minutes breaks for every 4 hours you work For an 8-hour work day, that would yield a 30 minute break + two ten minute ones. 0: https://calaborlaw.com/what-break-periods-am-i-entitled-to/ https://calaborlaw.com/what-break-periods-am-i-entitled-to/
dv_dt 9y ago
Look at the history of labor and the 40 hour week. You have to pick a standard, otherwise the pick will default to employers who will choose ever increasing hours for a fixed salary. If we pick one together it's easier than standing as a lone worker saying 7.5 is reasonable. Modern civilization has advanced, why should the work week stay at 40 (and eroding in many workplaces in America?)
- crazy1van 9y ago
  What if I want to work more than 40 hours/week in exchange for more money. Should I be prohibited from doing that?
  - gambiting 9y ago
    In certain industries, absolutely. If you're a professional driver you can't drive more than 8 hours a day in EU(9 hours once a week) even if you're perfectly willing to do so, in the interests of your safety and everyone around you. But outside of those select few industries, no.
    - pathseeker 9y ago
      That's entirely for safety and has nothing to do with limiting your total hours worked in a week. You could easily work for the trucking company at a desk during extra hours. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but there are approximately 7 days a week and 7*8 > 40.
      - gambiting 9y ago
        You have to be given one day off a week by law. Theoretically most companies could also work Saturdays but don't.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    You absolutely should get time and a half for work over 40 hours. The problem is that there are many places where that extra work is done without extra pay, most notably software.
  - blackbagboys 9y ago
    If your desire for more money degrades the quality of life of everyone else in the workforce - you should absolutely be prohibited. Let us suppose, what is at least supposable, whether it be the fact or not—that a general reduction of the hours of factory labour, say from ten to nine, would be for the advantage of the workpeople: that they would receive as high wages, or nearly as high, for nine hours’ labour as they receive for ten. If this would be the result, and if the operatives generally are convinced that it would, the limitation, some may say, will be adopted spontaneously. I answer, that it will not be adopted unless the body of operatives bind themselves to one another to abide by it. A workman who refused to work more than nine hours while there were others who worked ten, would either not be employed at all, or if employed, must submit to lose one-tenth of his wages. However convinced, therefore, he may be that it is the interest of the class to work short time, it is contrary to his own interest to set the example, unless he is well assured that all or most others will follow it. But suppose a general agreement of the whole class: might not this be effectual without the sanction of law? Not unless enforced by opinion with a rigour practically equal to that of law. For however beneficial the observance of the regulation might be to the class collectively, the immediate interest of every individual would lie in violating it: and the more numerous those were who adhered to the rule, the more would individuals gain by departing from it.

You didn't really explain how the American approach was absurd. Also, 7.5 hours seems extremely arbitrary. Why pick that number of hours? Why not 4 hours? Why not 9?

gknoy 9y ago

For non-salary workers, in your "8 hour" work day there is a certain mandated amount of break time. X minutes per Y hours, for example, plus time for lunch. They might have taken 8 hours and subtracted two 15-minute breaks. I'm not sure if the 8 hours is intended to be (8h + X break time), or (8h - X break time); I thought it was the former, but but might be mistaken. That's probably where the GP got their 7.5 from.

lotsofpulp 9y ago
In the USA, there is no federal requirement for break time.
- gknoy 9y ago
  How true! However, there are some at state levels. For example [0]: (2018) Under California law (which is much more generous to employees than federal law), if you are a non-exempt worker, you are entitled to meal and rest breaks: a 30-minute meal break if you work more than 5 hours in a workday, and 10 minutes breaks for every 4 hours you work For an 8-hour work day, that would yield a 30 minute break + two ten minute ones. 0: https://calaborlaw.com/what-break-periods-am-i-entitled-to/ https://calaborlaw.com/what-break-periods-am-i-entitled-to/

dv_dt 9y ago

Look at the history of labor and the 40 hour week. You have to pick a standard, otherwise the pick will default to employers who will choose ever increasing hours for a fixed salary. If we pick one together it's easier than standing as a lone worker saying 7.5 is reasonable. Modern civilization has advanced, why should the work week stay at 40 (and eroding in many workplaces in America?)

crazy1van 9y ago
What if I want to work more than 40 hours/week in exchange for more money. Should I be prohibited from doing that?
- gambiting 9y ago
  In certain industries, absolutely. If you're a professional driver you can't drive more than 8 hours a day in EU(9 hours once a week) even if you're perfectly willing to do so, in the interests of your safety and everyone around you. But outside of those select few industries, no.
  - pathseeker 9y ago
    That's entirely for safety and has nothing to do with limiting your total hours worked in a week. You could easily work for the trucking company at a desk during extra hours. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but there are approximately 7 days a week and 7*8 > 40.
    - gambiting 9y ago
      You have to be given one day off a week by law. Theoretically most companies could also work Saturdays but don't.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  You absolutely should get time and a half for work over 40 hours. The problem is that there are many places where that extra work is done without extra pay, most notably software.
- blackbagboys 9y ago
  If your desire for more money degrades the quality of life of everyone else in the workforce - you should absolutely be prohibited. Let us suppose, what is at least supposable, whether it be the fact or not—that a general reduction of the hours of factory labour, say from ten to nine, would be for the advantage of the workpeople: that they would receive as high wages, or nearly as high, for nine hours’ labour as they receive for ten. If this would be the result, and if the operatives generally are convinced that it would, the limitation, some may say, will be adopted spontaneously. I answer, that it will not be adopted unless the body of operatives bind themselves to one another to abide by it. A workman who refused to work more than nine hours while there were others who worked ten, would either not be employed at all, or if employed, must submit to lose one-tenth of his wages. However convinced, therefore, he may be that it is the interest of the class to work short time, it is contrary to his own interest to set the example, unless he is well assured that all or most others will follow it. But suppose a general agreement of the whole class: might not this be effectual without the sanction of law? Not unless enforced by opinion with a rigour practically equal to that of law. For however beneficial the observance of the regulation might be to the class collectively, the immediate interest of every individual would lie in violating it: and the more numerous those were who adhered to the rule, the more would individuals gain by departing from it.