4 ms·

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

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.

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.