3 ms·

But companies would only push for this at scale (as in saving a days worth of wages across the company is noticeably profitable in comparison to output from the

But companies would only push for this at scale (as in saving a days worth of wages across the company is noticeably profitable in comparison to output from the workers). Identifying this as a net positive towards profit leads to the harrowing conclusion that, at scale, they don’t need as many people. Not taking away anything from your point, just pondering the implications of shifts like this in the economy. Edit: I also want to add that many people in the service economy literally fight for extra shifts. The only hopeful outcome from these types of moves from companies is if they genuinely maintain salary and headcount amongst white collar workers. We have watched the blue collar economy get fleeced over and over and it’s important we remain vigilant against companies bearing perceived niceties. The incentives just don’t align.

toyg 6y ago
> the harrowing conclusion that, at scale, they don’t need as many people. That might be true at the same time as the realization that they are increasingly struggling with loss of knowledge on employee turnover, since they rely on complex systems more and more. > I also want to add that many people in the service economy literally fight for extra shifts. Anything shift-based already works under custom rules most of the time. Where trade-unions are a thing, for example, they often reduce working times "in solidarity" to avoid layoffs, it's been the case for decades. Or they do week-on-week-off etc etc. I don't expect those areas to significantly reduce their hours across the board, at least not until it's normalized in white-collar sectors first. > The incentives just don’t align. I am as suspicious of the owning classes as the next guy, but it's not unusual to see the most enlightened industrialists trying to find a better balance for all parties in the equation. See for example XIX-century mill-owners building entire towns out of their own pockets, including schools and community centres, because it benefited them in the long run as much as the workers in the immediate. I am not particularly suspicious of intentions here, but rather skeptical that it can work piecemeal. France tried something like that in the '90s but got weak-kneed when it came to enforcement, which means it didn't work in practice and got watered down into irrelevance very quickly (I don't know if it was eventually scrapped entirely).

toyg 6y ago

> the harrowing conclusion that, at scale, they don’t need as many people. That might be true at the same time as the realization that they are increasingly struggling with loss of knowledge on employee turnover, since they rely on complex systems more and more. > I also want to add that many people in the service economy literally fight for extra shifts. Anything shift-based already works under custom rules most of the time. Where trade-unions are a thing, for example, they often reduce working times "in solidarity" to avoid layoffs, it's been the case for decades. Or they do week-on-week-off etc etc. I don't expect those areas to significantly reduce their hours across the board, at least not until it's normalized in white-collar sectors first. > The incentives just don’t align. I am as suspicious of the owning classes as the next guy, but it's not unusual to see the most enlightened industrialists trying to find a better balance for all parties in the equation. See for example XIX-century mill-owners building entire towns out of their own pockets, including schools and community centres, because it benefited them in the long run as much as the workers in the immediate. I am not particularly suspicious of intentions here, but rather skeptical that it can work piecemeal. France tried something like that in the '90s but got weak-kneed when it came to enforcement, which means it didn't work in practice and got watered down into irrelevance very quickly (I don't know if it was eventually scrapped entirely).