3 ms·

"Today, Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours by lowering the maximum hours thres

"Today, Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours by lowering the maximum hours threshold for overtime compensation for non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)." It seems like this would just lead to businesses who employee non-exempt employees hiring more of them but scheduling for fewer hours to stay under the 32 hour threshold. Simple changes to a system as complex as our labor laws are just not going to do the job. We need to look at employee classification as though we were starting from scratch to design a system that makes sense for the realities of today - gig work, remote work, side hustles, etc.

JoeQuery 5y ago
I agree with you here. I'm honestly not educated on history enough to know if such a reform is feasible in a single pass - an entire redesign vs incremental change. It would be cool if a major rework could happen all at once.
- thoughtstheseus 5y ago
  The best approach I know of is for the government or other large employers to make the shift to a 4 day workweek. Once 10s of millions are doing it, it’ll become more of a cultural norm.
  - splistud 5y ago
    Agree, that's the best course. For 24/7 types of situations, it will only be a change in use patterns.
hedora 5y ago
The most obvious fix is to make employers offer the same benefits (prorated by hours worked) for all employees. That’d radically change the structure of the health insurance industry, since working full time hours by combining two part time jobs would imply that you’d get health insurance just like full time workers at either company.
- cestith 5y ago
  Unfortunately if you're covered by two different group health plans you're going to need that extra day a week just to coordinate the fight over who pays for what. Just have Medicate (or maybe better Medicaid) for all and be done with tying that to an employer.
Jtsummers 5y ago
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title29/chapter8&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title29/cha... Section 213 is what you want to look at. It’s not really a matter of choice but industry, role, and hourly rate that determines if someone is considered exempt.
- awillen 5y ago
  Right, and the classifications it provides are outdated for the reality of today. I didn't say that employers would try to reclassify their employees - I said that they would keep their non-exempt ones under the 32 hour threshold.
aidenn0 5y ago
> It seems like this would just lead to businesses who employee non-exempt employees hiring more of them but scheduling for fewer hours to stay under the 32 hour threshold. ... I mean that's kind of the point, right? The AFL-CIO rep quote basically says that it will spread the existing hours around to more people. There are also some cases where companies have few enough qualified candidates where they are already paying overtime, and this will not significantly affect them. For example if you are working 56 hours a week, then you are currently getting paid for 64 hours of labor (40+16 and 1.5x) and after this you would be getting paid for 68 hours of labor if you continued to work 56 hours.

JoeQuery 5y ago

I agree with you here. I'm honestly not educated on history enough to know if such a reform is feasible in a single pass - an entire redesign vs incremental change. It would be cool if a major rework could happen all at once.

thoughtstheseus 5y ago
The best approach I know of is for the government or other large employers to make the shift to a 4 day workweek. Once 10s of millions are doing it, it’ll become more of a cultural norm.
- splistud 5y ago
  Agree, that's the best course. For 24/7 types of situations, it will only be a change in use patterns.

hedora 5y ago

The most obvious fix is to make employers offer the same benefits (prorated by hours worked) for all employees. That’d radically change the structure of the health insurance industry, since working full time hours by combining two part time jobs would imply that you’d get health insurance just like full time workers at either company.

cestith 5y ago
Unfortunately if you're covered by two different group health plans you're going to need that extra day a week just to coordinate the fight over who pays for what. Just have Medicate (or maybe better Medicaid) for all and be done with tying that to an employer.

Jtsummers 5y ago

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title29/chapter8&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title29/cha... Section 213 is what you want to look at. It’s not really a matter of choice but industry, role, and hourly rate that determines if someone is considered exempt.

awillen 5y ago
Right, and the classifications it provides are outdated for the reality of today. I didn't say that employers would try to reclassify their employees - I said that they would keep their non-exempt ones under the 32 hour threshold.

aidenn0 5y ago

> It seems like this would just lead to businesses who employee non-exempt employees hiring more of them but scheduling for fewer hours to stay under the 32 hour threshold. ... I mean that's kind of the point, right? The AFL-CIO rep quote basically says that it will spread the existing hours around to more people. There are also some cases where companies have few enough qualified candidates where they are already paying overtime, and this will not significantly affect them. For example if you are working 56 hours a week, then you are currently getting paid for 64 hours of labor (40+16 and 1.5x) and after this you would be getting paid for 68 hours of labor if you continued to work 56 hours.