4 ms·

I'm all for more human-friendly ideas but why do we have to go so far with our next step as a general 4-day workweek or basic universal income. Instead, guarant

by Tarsul 5y ago

I'm all for more human-friendly ideas but why do we have to go so far with our next step as a general 4-day workweek or basic universal income. Instead, guarantee that every worker has the OPTION to work part-time and also that overtime must not be a permanent condition (with heavy fines for companies who don't care). After that, we can talk about a general 4-day workweek or similar. (I know, e.g. the Netherlands are far more advanced regarding part-time work than other countries, maybe they can go further.) Go step by step.

mikhailt 5y ago
It's a two way street, companies have the right to have fixed schedules from their workers to ensure planning and everything else goes smoothly. It is easier and sustainable to work around four-day work schedules than to give workers the flexibility of changing their hours. Also of note, laws and regulations around the world differ in what full time means because full time is where the benefits kick in by laws; in other words; if the worker change to part-time, then the entire benefits package can be drastically impacted. For an example, in many companies in US, if you work less than 40 hours, then companies are not obligated to give you any benefits such as paid time off, health insurance, etc, they can mark you as a contractor and not an employee. Changing the 40 hours down to 30 hours as full time would not allow the companies to do that. So, I rather have four-day weekend with full benefits first and then part-time would be considered anything less than 30 hours. Your idea means that it is more likely that the employees get less benefits while still requiring 40 hours work-load as baseline.
Sanguinaire 5y ago
Options are problematic because you end up with a competitive/tragedy-of-the-commons situation, where no-one really ends up having the option at all if they want an appealing job or competitive salary. Using national-level regulation to define a "new normal" isn't what I would choose by preference, but I just don't see anything else working without side-effects undoing all of the potential advantages to employees.

by Tarsul 5y ago

mikhailt 5y ago

It's a two way street, companies have the right to have fixed schedules from their workers to ensure planning and everything else goes smoothly. It is easier and sustainable to work around four-day work schedules than to give workers the flexibility of changing their hours. Also of note, laws and regulations around the world differ in what full time means because full time is where the benefits kick in by laws; in other words; if the worker change to part-time, then the entire benefits package can be drastically impacted. For an example, in many companies in US, if you work less than 40 hours, then companies are not obligated to give you any benefits such as paid time off, health insurance, etc, they can mark you as a contractor and not an employee. Changing the 40 hours down to 30 hours as full time would not allow the companies to do that. So, I rather have four-day weekend with full benefits first and then part-time would be considered anything less than 30 hours. Your idea means that it is more likely that the employees get less benefits while still requiring 40 hours work-load as baseline.

Sanguinaire 5y ago

Options are problematic because you end up with a competitive/tragedy-of-the-commons situation, where no-one really ends up having the option at all if they want an appealing job or competitive salary. Using national-level regulation to define a "new normal" isn't what I would choose by preference, but I just don't see anything else working without side-effects undoing all of the potential advantages to employees.