3 ms·

Iceland cuts working hours for majority after shorter working week trial

33 points by osivertsson 5y ago

anm89 5y ago
I don't even really understand what this means. Like, I would guess ~half of workers no longer clock in or out these days, I know I haven't for a majority of my career. So what do they do? And then what about retail where you just need a warm body present for a time range. Do they just get a defacto hourly rate raise and then you hire another person to make up the left over? Im overall in support of people working less but the details of these schemes never make sense to me.
- jfengel 5y ago
  The minimum size in this experiment was 20 people in a company. So not the kind of place that had exactly one person manning a cash register. Each company handled it differently, but presumably for something like retail, it would be a matter of scheduling shifts such that some predictable time of low utilization would have lower staff. Note that although it's only a 4 day work week, it was also 9 hour days, so you're only cutting hours 10%. So, find the slow time and schedule somebody to leave before it. Or something like that; it varies from organization to organization. Or maybe they do need to hire another person. If they've got 20 employees whose hours have been cut by 10%, then they hire two more people. It costs more, but overall, they found that it improved life enough to be worth it. No idea how it would apply to small businesses. Probably, it doesn't. But it gives their employees a bit of negotiating power for more money. They think it will help, rather than harm, the overall economy.
beckman466 5y ago
The problem with a social democratic initiative like this is that the fellow members of the working class who live in the global south, who produce 99% of the products the Icelandic bourgeoisie (together with the rest of the Global North bourgeoisie) outsources to there, do not get this same treatment. [1] 'Solutions' like this are a distraction for the labor movement/socialists and labor organizers everywhere. It also reminds me of how there is this unfortunately common yet gross accounting trick that tries to only count and shine a light on the level of pollution by the producers (usually by country), without accounting for who they are producing for (which company + country). So yes China is polluting, but most of it is in response to requests from global north capitalists. Both of the above are not solutions, they are half(baked) solutions as well as being misinterpretations of the full context and system. [1] https://anti-imperialism.org/2012/09/18/understanding-and-changing-an-interview-with-zak-cope-author-of-divided-world-divided-class/ https://anti-imperialism.org/2012/09/18/understanding-and-ch...
- thecopy 5y ago
  Why is that a problem? Is better that everyone is equally worse off?
  - beckman466 5y ago
    lol always the same argument: "oh you want equality? so you want everyone to be equally poor!" no! I want everyone to be wealthy. we have more than enough of everything on this planet for everyone.
    - throwaway210222 5y ago
      > we have more than enough of everything on this planet for everyone. Except nice beach front property (Hamptons, Sydney, Cape Seaboard, Monte Carlo). Of that we really do have a limited supply and enormous demand. So what mechanism do you propose for allocating access over prime summer holidays from a pool of literally millions of eager applicants? Other than price.

33 points by osivertsson 5y ago

I don't even really understand what this means. Like, I would guess ~half of workers no longer clock in or out these days, I know I haven't for a majority of my career. So what do they do? And then what about retail where you just need a warm body present for a time range. Do they just get a defacto hourly rate raise and then you hire another person to make up the left over? Im overall in support of people working less but the details of these schemes never make sense to me.

jfengel 5y ago
The minimum size in this experiment was 20 people in a company. So not the kind of place that had exactly one person manning a cash register. Each company handled it differently, but presumably for something like retail, it would be a matter of scheduling shifts such that some predictable time of low utilization would have lower staff. Note that although it's only a 4 day work week, it was also 9 hour days, so you're only cutting hours 10%. So, find the slow time and schedule somebody to leave before it. Or something like that; it varies from organization to organization. Or maybe they do need to hire another person. If they've got 20 employees whose hours have been cut by 10%, then they hire two more people. It costs more, but overall, they found that it improved life enough to be worth it. No idea how it would apply to small businesses. Probably, it doesn't. But it gives their employees a bit of negotiating power for more money. They think it will help, rather than harm, the overall economy.

beckman466 5y ago

The problem with a social democratic initiative like this is that the fellow members of the working class who live in the global south, who produce 99% of the products the Icelandic bourgeoisie (together with the rest of the Global North bourgeoisie) outsources to there, do not get this same treatment. [1] 'Solutions' like this are a distraction for the labor movement/socialists and labor organizers everywhere. It also reminds me of how there is this unfortunately common yet gross accounting trick that tries to only count and shine a light on the level of pollution by the producers (usually by country), without accounting for who they are producing for (which company + country). So yes China is polluting, but most of it is in response to requests from global north capitalists. Both of the above are not solutions, they are half(baked) solutions as well as being misinterpretations of the full context and system. [1] https://anti-imperialism.org/2012/09/18/understanding-and-changing-an-interview-with-zak-cope-author-of-divided-world-divided-class/ https://anti-imperialism.org/2012/09/18/understanding-and-ch...

thecopy 5y ago
Why is that a problem? Is better that everyone is equally worse off?
- beckman466 5y ago
  lol always the same argument: "oh you want equality? so you want everyone to be equally poor!" no! I want everyone to be wealthy. we have more than enough of everything on this planet for everyone.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    > we have more than enough of everything on this planet for everyone. Except nice beach front property (Hamptons, Sydney, Cape Seaboard, Monte Carlo). Of that we really do have a limited supply and enormous demand. So what mechanism do you propose for allocating access over prime summer holidays from a pool of literally millions of eager applicants? Other than price.