5 ms·

Didn’t France try this or propose this years ago? Isn’t the problem that you would create more overhead due to the additional hires, in addition to having to tr

Didn’t France try this or propose this years ago? Isn’t the problem that you would create more overhead due to the additional hires, in addition to having to train more people. I can think of a ton more issues. It could of course be better than the alternative.

ehmish 6y ago
Yeah I mean the alternative is taxing the 5-day-a-week workers and transferring the money to unemployed people, who while out of work have their skills languish. 4 day a week work-weeks seem like quite a cost-effective crisis response for working around a sheer shortage of jobs.
- _nalply 6y ago
  If the salary stays the same you effectively increase the minimum wage. I am not sure that this is what people really want.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    These aren't minimum wage jobs, they're skilled labor with pretty average salaries, so this would be a strong increase in hourly labor cost.
- chii 6y ago
  gov't spending on infrastructure and productive assets to create jobs is, to me, a better choice than to mandate a reduction in the amount of work a worker can perform. Of course, the option to have a 4-day week should be on the table, but this shouldn't be mandated by decree - but instead, a choice the worker and the employer can negotiate and come to a market driven agreement. Otherwise, you'd be building in market inefficiencies, and this leads to wastage.
- euru3he3fgh 6y ago
  If people want to work five days a week it's probably because they need the money and if there's enough of them to displace other workgroups then why is the party that wants to work harder being penalized? It seems bizarrely European to feel like it's unfair to let people decide how much they want to work.
  - yokaze 6y ago
    A very American assumption, that a lack of regulation equates to more freedom. In both cases, the individual is limited in their choice. Without legal restrictions, the individuals choice is restricted by economic and social constraints. E.g. in low paying jobs, less hours is not an option, because of low pay, and in "high" paying jobs, it isn't because you won't have the job long. Precisely because of the implication you give "more hours -> wanting to work harder". And partly because your employer doesn't want to go through the hassle of having to handle different work schedules, managing more people. The "European" variant is a collective choice countering the socioeconomic pressure. In Europe you are "forced" to have a medical insurance, in the US, you are free to choose/lose it with your employment. I would claim, socioeconomic constraints are limiting your choices much more, than laws do.
  - cam_l 6y ago
    > it's unfair to let people decide how much they want to work. Why is this confined to only the people already working?
    - luckylion 6y ago
      I believe there's a large difference between not interfering with someone's choices, and the idea of compelling others to accommodate anyone's choice. That is: if I have the opportunity & desire to work on something, you shouldn't interfere with it. But me having the desire to work on something shouldn't require you go provide the opportunity.
      - cam_l 6y ago
        A belief is not a very compelling argument. Frankly, in the context of a job market I see both as interference. But whatever our beliefs, we already have sets of rules, legal and social, which limit people's choices in the job market. The ability to hire people is a privilege which comes with responsibilities, part of which is a responsibility to society. This is why developed countries have minimum wages. Now as to what extent or whether at all, you can place limitations on employers without placing limitations on employees, now that is an argument worth exploring.
thepangolino 6y ago
France reduced the working hours to 35 a week, still spread over 5 days. It was quite controversial with mixed results of I remember correctly.
Apocryphon 6y ago
It would definitely cause complications, but if it's economically sustainable, shouldn't incentivizing additional hiring be a societal goal? Not only would it reduce unemployment, it would improve work-life balance. The article didn't provide details, but I'm imagining if workers are capped at four day workweeks, but businesses still operate five to seven days a week, then you can get more coverage without burnout. Certainly there would be overhead of not just more people to train and coordination between people operating on different four day windows, but frankly, what is management being paid to do if not figure out problems such as this? Already you hear about sectors from medicine to law to investment banking where despite earning high salaries, workers are forced to endure ridiculously long hours and deal with high stress. Why not spread the workload? Reminds me of job-sharing proposals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_sharing
- gridlockd 6y ago
  It doesn't have to be just sustainable, it has to be competitive. Companies can just decide invest into automation instead, or close shop and move production to other countries. Germany is a relatively low-wage country considering its productivity, but also its factories are highly automated. If these variables change, production will continue to move to cheaper European countries, just like US production moves to Mexico.
  - JetSpiegel 6y ago
    > It doesn't have to be just sustainable, it has to be competitive. Tax the shit out of companies that pull these kind of stunts to skirt the law. Tariff their products at the border. If those countries are on the EU, Germany can use its clout to "force" these kind of rules on other countries. This soft power is real, as seen in Greece in 2013. If the Visegrad countries complain, kick Hungary out of the EU for their rule-of-law violations, it's only several years out of date. Most of this could fit under the "COVID" umbrella.

ehmish 6y ago

Yeah I mean the alternative is taxing the 5-day-a-week workers and transferring the money to unemployed people, who while out of work have their skills languish. 4 day a week work-weeks seem like quite a cost-effective crisis response for working around a sheer shortage of jobs.

_nalply 6y ago
If the salary stays the same you effectively increase the minimum wage. I am not sure that this is what people really want.
- luckylion 6y ago
  These aren't minimum wage jobs, they're skilled labor with pretty average salaries, so this would be a strong increase in hourly labor cost.
chii 6y ago
gov't spending on infrastructure and productive assets to create jobs is, to me, a better choice than to mandate a reduction in the amount of work a worker can perform. Of course, the option to have a 4-day week should be on the table, but this shouldn't be mandated by decree - but instead, a choice the worker and the employer can negotiate and come to a market driven agreement. Otherwise, you'd be building in market inefficiencies, and this leads to wastage.
euru3he3fgh 6y ago
If people want to work five days a week it's probably because they need the money and if there's enough of them to displace other workgroups then why is the party that wants to work harder being penalized? It seems bizarrely European to feel like it's unfair to let people decide how much they want to work.
- yokaze 6y ago
  A very American assumption, that a lack of regulation equates to more freedom. In both cases, the individual is limited in their choice. Without legal restrictions, the individuals choice is restricted by economic and social constraints. E.g. in low paying jobs, less hours is not an option, because of low pay, and in "high" paying jobs, it isn't because you won't have the job long. Precisely because of the implication you give "more hours -> wanting to work harder". And partly because your employer doesn't want to go through the hassle of having to handle different work schedules, managing more people. The "European" variant is a collective choice countering the socioeconomic pressure. In Europe you are "forced" to have a medical insurance, in the US, you are free to choose/lose it with your employment. I would claim, socioeconomic constraints are limiting your choices much more, than laws do.
- cam_l 6y ago
  > it's unfair to let people decide how much they want to work. Why is this confined to only the people already working?
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I believe there's a large difference between not interfering with someone's choices, and the idea of compelling others to accommodate anyone's choice. That is: if I have the opportunity & desire to work on something, you shouldn't interfere with it. But me having the desire to work on something shouldn't require you go provide the opportunity.
    - cam_l 6y ago
      A belief is not a very compelling argument. Frankly, in the context of a job market I see both as interference. But whatever our beliefs, we already have sets of rules, legal and social, which limit people's choices in the job market. The ability to hire people is a privilege which comes with responsibilities, part of which is a responsibility to society. This is why developed countries have minimum wages. Now as to what extent or whether at all, you can place limitations on employers without placing limitations on employees, now that is an argument worth exploring.

thepangolino 6y ago

France reduced the working hours to 35 a week, still spread over 5 days. It was quite controversial with mixed results of I remember correctly.

Apocryphon 6y ago

It would definitely cause complications, but if it's economically sustainable, shouldn't incentivizing additional hiring be a societal goal? Not only would it reduce unemployment, it would improve work-life balance. The article didn't provide details, but I'm imagining if workers are capped at four day workweeks, but businesses still operate five to seven days a week, then you can get more coverage without burnout. Certainly there would be overhead of not just more people to train and coordination between people operating on different four day windows, but frankly, what is management being paid to do if not figure out problems such as this? Already you hear about sectors from medicine to law to investment banking where despite earning high salaries, workers are forced to endure ridiculously long hours and deal with high stress. Why not spread the workload? Reminds me of job-sharing proposals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_sharing

gridlockd 6y ago
It doesn't have to be just sustainable, it has to be competitive. Companies can just decide invest into automation instead, or close shop and move production to other countries. Germany is a relatively low-wage country considering its productivity, but also its factories are highly automated. If these variables change, production will continue to move to cheaper European countries, just like US production moves to Mexico.
- JetSpiegel 6y ago
  > It doesn't have to be just sustainable, it has to be competitive. Tax the shit out of companies that pull these kind of stunts to skirt the law. Tariff their products at the border. If those countries are on the EU, Germany can use its clout to "force" these kind of rules on other countries. This soft power is real, as seen in Greece in 2013. If the Visegrad countries complain, kick Hungary out of the EU for their rule-of-law violations, it's only several years out of date. Most of this could fit under the "COVID" umbrella.