3 ms·

If I were ever in such a position of power I would aggressively push for 32 hour work weeks by 2022. (Tapering down each year until then). I would loop most sal

If I were ever in such a position of power I would aggressively push for 32 hour work weeks by 2022. (Tapering down each year until then). I would loop most salaried (OT exempt) jobs into this category as well as I think a lot of "OT exempt" employees should not really be classified as such. (Including SW engineers and DevOps ppl) 32 hours a week. Every hour after 32 and before 40 would be time and half. Every hour after 40 and before 50 would be double. Hours after 50 would be billed at triple the hourly rate. I would only change the hours. Not rates, or anything else. Let the market settle out the rest. I've been working as a SWE now at 35 hours a week for almost 4 years (admittedly at a lowend SWE salary [but still much higher than average, we live pretty comfortably]) and honestly I can't even imagine going back to 40+ hours a week (or 60+ when I was a fresh out of college kid at a start up) The extra time now I spend with my family, and just getting stuff done has been so much more valuable than I ever could have imagined. It's something I wish I could spread to others. When I was at a startup I scoffed at people going home at 5-5:15. Considered them not "passionate about the product". Oh how misguided I was...but I digress.

harryh 8y ago
You would make it illegal for someone else to hire me at $100/hr for a 40 hour week? What business is it of yours? Geez.
njarboe 8y ago
When a large number of people are working two jobs already because a lot of jobs will only let you work for less than 30hrs a week to keep costs down (not full time so don't need to include many costly benefits), it is probably not helping people if they now have to go to three different jobs. The USA should probably get rid of the rules that force companies to pay people more when the work longer. It would be a lot easier for workers to just work at one place for 60-80 hr/wk and not have to commute to an extra job if they need/want more money.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  This is a terrible idea, and does nothing to increase the quality of life of workers. No one should need to work more than 40 hours a week to survive, but if you want to work more than that voluntarily, that’s okay. Wages need to continue to be driven up while also reducing the minimum number of hours per week making a worker considered full time.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Say you would rather work 60hr a week at one job at the same pay rate instead of working 40hr at one job and 20hr at another. You like your main job and the extra commute time to another job is a pain. Your main employer likes your work and is willing to pay you your standard wage for 60hr a week. This rate is even higher than your second job. This is not allowed by the US government. You can't legally voluntarily give up an hourly overtime wage increase. Unless, of course, you are in a salaried position. Then you can work as many hours a week as your employer and you agree on. A higher standard of living for everyone is a great idea. How to do that over a long period of time in a society is a hard problem. I think it probably consists of letting people decided for themselves how to live their lives and have as little central planning, state control, and corporations as possible, but who knows?
    - cableshaft 8y ago
      The problem is, that without the financial disincentive, that employer has no reason NOT to have mandatory overtime, all the time, and try to get by on half the work force working mandatory 80 hour weeks and save the costs of benefits and PTO and whatever that the two employees at 40 hour weeks would cost. It wouldn't happen right away, but would creep up, and people would feel they'd have no choice because they need a job and all other companies by that point would be doing the same thing anyway. Just look at the video game industry, where the supply for jobs is so high and people are willing to put up with so much shit to live their dream that it has a notorious 'crunch time' of 60-80+ hour weeks, sometimes lasting for years on end, and just expected of you. It's gotten so bad in that industry there are (supposedly) legitimate efforts to unionize to protect the workers. You don't see that in any other software development field. That's basically what you're advocating for. The overtime needs to be there as a check against the corporation's own greed and psychopathic indifference towards its employees' well being. The financial disincentive is the only thing that stops the employer from allowing these abuses in most cases.

harryh 8y ago

You would make it illegal for someone else to hire me at $100/hr for a 40 hour week? What business is it of yours? Geez.

njarboe 8y ago

When a large number of people are working two jobs already because a lot of jobs will only let you work for less than 30hrs a week to keep costs down (not full time so don't need to include many costly benefits), it is probably not helping people if they now have to go to three different jobs. The USA should probably get rid of the rules that force companies to pay people more when the work longer. It would be a lot easier for workers to just work at one place for 60-80 hr/wk and not have to commute to an extra job if they need/want more money.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
This is a terrible idea, and does nothing to increase the quality of life of workers. No one should need to work more than 40 hours a week to survive, but if you want to work more than that voluntarily, that’s okay. Wages need to continue to be driven up while also reducing the minimum number of hours per week making a worker considered full time.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Say you would rather work 60hr a week at one job at the same pay rate instead of working 40hr at one job and 20hr at another. You like your main job and the extra commute time to another job is a pain. Your main employer likes your work and is willing to pay you your standard wage for 60hr a week. This rate is even higher than your second job. This is not allowed by the US government. You can't legally voluntarily give up an hourly overtime wage increase. Unless, of course, you are in a salaried position. Then you can work as many hours a week as your employer and you agree on. A higher standard of living for everyone is a great idea. How to do that over a long period of time in a society is a hard problem. I think it probably consists of letting people decided for themselves how to live their lives and have as little central planning, state control, and corporations as possible, but who knows?
  - cableshaft 8y ago
    The problem is, that without the financial disincentive, that employer has no reason NOT to have mandatory overtime, all the time, and try to get by on half the work force working mandatory 80 hour weeks and save the costs of benefits and PTO and whatever that the two employees at 40 hour weeks would cost. It wouldn't happen right away, but would creep up, and people would feel they'd have no choice because they need a job and all other companies by that point would be doing the same thing anyway. Just look at the video game industry, where the supply for jobs is so high and people are willing to put up with so much shit to live their dream that it has a notorious 'crunch time' of 60-80+ hour weeks, sometimes lasting for years on end, and just expected of you. It's gotten so bad in that industry there are (supposedly) legitimate efforts to unionize to protect the workers. You don't see that in any other software development field. That's basically what you're advocating for. The overtime needs to be there as a check against the corporation's own greed and psychopathic indifference towards its employees' well being. The financial disincentive is the only thing that stops the employer from allowing these abuses in most cases.