5 ms·

Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act

71 points by heavyset_go 5y ago

treeface9000 5y ago
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Well, that's a fun political stunt which will never exit committee.* *If it does actually become law, I'll donate my side project to open-source. Edit: On another note, the bill has a lot of sponsors, but they all have the letter D next to their names. Not very bipartisan.
airstrike 5y ago
Based on an advanced monte carlo simulation I had running for 3 weeks on the NVIDIA DGX Station™ A100 supercomputing cluster in my garage, I have estimated that the odds of this bill ever becoming law to be: . . . Approximately zero
- yucky 5y ago
  If 32 hours is better than 40, why not shoot for a 24 hour work week? Since this is being heavily promoted by the anti-work crowds on Twitter and Reddit, we know they don't really want to work 32 hours. Maybe this is just a case of them always having terrible naming conventions (ie Defund the Police) It's like the #FightFor15 argument, if you're already saying 15 isn't enough, then it undermines your calls for it. Say what you mean and mean what you say. If not, don't expect to be taken seriously.
  - kurikuri 5y ago
    I’m not sure I appreciate this type of argument. Is the credibility of a movement actually undermined if the progress currently asked for isn’t the final objective? Is moving in the direction of what I want not an action you could take seriously if I don’t reach my destination? There might be valid points against this, but preventing any partial solution because it isn’t the ultimate solution seems to be more of a derailing tactic (where the conversation is instead devolved into trying to examine what the ideal solution would be in a hypothetical we wouldn’t be able to achieve) than an actual argument.
transfire 5y ago
Giving the constant, if not exponential, growth in productivity, this have to happen eventually. Think it would have a better chance if they started with 36 hours however.
- jmcgough 5y ago
  I don't see it ever happening, capitalists are too powerful and this goes directly against their wishes.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    They would probably be against it for a different reason. The instinctual reaction would be that 32 hours of labor means businesses need to hire 1 new person for every 4 people currently employed, growing their business's headcount by 25%, to compensate. That's cheaper than paying more overtime. In today's current labor shortage, that would be a disaster. If it was a world with enormous unemployment, then maybe there'd be an argument.
- saila 5y ago
  5 x 7 would be a good start. For many jobs, that would probably boost productivity, since a lot of people don't work anywhere near 8 hours a day anyway.
  - 6510 5y ago
    I thought about that one quite often. There are also a lot of jobs where the 7th and 8th hour take 10 times the effort. My experience is that anything over 5h requires budgeting my energy or otherwise holding back.
- igetspam 5y ago
  It tapers from 40 to 38 to 36 to 34 to 32. The rollout is slow.
dantheman 5y ago
I'd prefer lower taxes, then I could choose to work less hours.
- alanbernstein 5y ago
  What do taxes have to do with the ability of an average person to choose to work less than 40 hours per week, when a standard full-time position requires it?
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  If the government can print money and give it away as stimulus, why do they even need your taxes? ;)
- kromem 5y ago
  I often see this being thrown out as something people desire, but I always wonder just what people would themselves cut. Like, do you want to get rid of social security and Medicare? That's a pretty big part of what's removed from a paycheck. Pay less towards defense spending? Whenever I look at where tax dollars actually go, while I do think there's a huge need for better accounting oversight and identifying inefficiencies in spending, it's not like the buckets themselves aren't worth investing in. Just like with any corporation, you need to invest in order to see a return. Optimizing that ROI is always a good thing, but simply taking all profit as dividends is a terrible investment strategy. Government is much like a giant corporation where everyone is a customer and (in theory) an equal shareholder. I don't want my money being spent inefficiently, but it's an incredible idea to be able to just contribute a portion of my money in order to reap returns in ways well beyond what I'd be able to accomplish as an individual investor or in ways I'd be even more fleeced by for profit alternatives. For example, Medicare pays less than any private insurance for the same treatments to providers, and because of the group size is nearly universally accepted. Everyone I know that's under the age where it kicks in but is close talks regularly about how much they hate their private insurance and how they can't wait to finally be on Medicare. I completely understand wanting better implementation of taxes, and fairer distribution of taxes based on means, but not so much the idea of not having them at all, or only thinking about their direct reduction. So I'm curious - when you look at the budget, what would you cut, by how much, and what would that proportionally save you per year?
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
The actual text of the bill can been seen here [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728...
jvanderbot 5y ago
I don't think this works to get everyone instantly to a 4 day workweek. I'm guessing it's actually to change the number of hours you have to work to receive full time benefits, and other such bookkeeping.
- igetspam 5y ago
  It's a short read. It's about hourly compensation and how and when overtime is to be paid. Anything over 32 becomes overtime and is paid at time and half. Anything over eight in a single day is overtime and at twelve hours, it's paid at double. By the very nature, it would encourage employers to have people work fewer hours. The drawback is obviously the hit to those who work hourly and suddenly lose 8h of pay because they get capped at 32. Seems like a potential bargaining chip for raising minimum wage instead. I don't see it passing but if it did, it would likely benefit salaried employees last but more.
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    Does it exempt software developers?
    - mister_tee 5y ago
      very likely yes, exempts anyone who was already exempt from overtime past 40 hours. It's a very short bill that more or less patches the FLSA to change a couple constants; doesn't look to affect anything about exempt employees.
  - danaris 5y ago
    What's needed is a reduction in working hours plus a guarantee that monthly (or weekly/yearly/whatever time period makes most sense) take-home pay will remain largely unchanged—so if we're pushing for a reduction from a 40-hour to a 32-hour work week, hourly wages should be increased by 25% to compensate.
bagels 5y ago
How is the 40 hour work week definition used? Is this intended to cause employers to pay more overtime? Is this intended reduce employee earnings by reducing hours? Was referred to committee 9 months ago, it's probably just going to die there.

71 points by heavyset_go 5y ago

Well, that's a fun political stunt which will never exit committee.* *If it does actually become law, I'll donate my side project to open-source. Edit: On another note, the bill has a lot of sponsors, but they all have the letter D next to their names. Not very bipartisan.

airstrike 5y ago

Based on an advanced monte carlo simulation I had running for 3 weeks on the NVIDIA DGX Station™ A100 supercomputing cluster in my garage, I have estimated that the odds of this bill ever becoming law to be: . . . Approximately zero

yucky 5y ago
If 32 hours is better than 40, why not shoot for a 24 hour work week? Since this is being heavily promoted by the anti-work crowds on Twitter and Reddit, we know they don't really want to work 32 hours. Maybe this is just a case of them always having terrible naming conventions (ie Defund the Police) It's like the #FightFor15 argument, if you're already saying 15 isn't enough, then it undermines your calls for it. Say what you mean and mean what you say. If not, don't expect to be taken seriously.
- kurikuri 5y ago
  I’m not sure I appreciate this type of argument. Is the credibility of a movement actually undermined if the progress currently asked for isn’t the final objective? Is moving in the direction of what I want not an action you could take seriously if I don’t reach my destination? There might be valid points against this, but preventing any partial solution because it isn’t the ultimate solution seems to be more of a derailing tactic (where the conversation is instead devolved into trying to examine what the ideal solution would be in a hypothetical we wouldn’t be able to achieve) than an actual argument.

transfire 5y ago

Giving the constant, if not exponential, growth in productivity, this have to happen eventually. Think it would have a better chance if they started with 36 hours however.

jmcgough 5y ago
I don't see it ever happening, capitalists are too powerful and this goes directly against their wishes.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  They would probably be against it for a different reason. The instinctual reaction would be that 32 hours of labor means businesses need to hire 1 new person for every 4 people currently employed, growing their business's headcount by 25%, to compensate. That's cheaper than paying more overtime. In today's current labor shortage, that would be a disaster. If it was a world with enormous unemployment, then maybe there'd be an argument.
saila 5y ago
5 x 7 would be a good start. For many jobs, that would probably boost productivity, since a lot of people don't work anywhere near 8 hours a day anyway.
- 6510 5y ago
  I thought about that one quite often. There are also a lot of jobs where the 7th and 8th hour take 10 times the effort. My experience is that anything over 5h requires budgeting my energy or otherwise holding back.
igetspam 5y ago
It tapers from 40 to 38 to 36 to 34 to 32. The rollout is slow.

dantheman 5y ago

I'd prefer lower taxes, then I could choose to work less hours.

alanbernstein 5y ago
What do taxes have to do with the ability of an average person to choose to work less than 40 hours per week, when a standard full-time position requires it?
gjsman-1000 5y ago
If the government can print money and give it away as stimulus, why do they even need your taxes? ;)
kromem 5y ago
I often see this being thrown out as something people desire, but I always wonder just what people would themselves cut. Like, do you want to get rid of social security and Medicare? That's a pretty big part of what's removed from a paycheck. Pay less towards defense spending? Whenever I look at where tax dollars actually go, while I do think there's a huge need for better accounting oversight and identifying inefficiencies in spending, it's not like the buckets themselves aren't worth investing in. Just like with any corporation, you need to invest in order to see a return. Optimizing that ROI is always a good thing, but simply taking all profit as dividends is a terrible investment strategy. Government is much like a giant corporation where everyone is a customer and (in theory) an equal shareholder. I don't want my money being spent inefficiently, but it's an incredible idea to be able to just contribute a portion of my money in order to reap returns in ways well beyond what I'd be able to accomplish as an individual investor or in ways I'd be even more fleeced by for profit alternatives. For example, Medicare pays less than any private insurance for the same treatments to providers, and because of the group size is nearly universally accepted. Everyone I know that's under the age where it kicks in but is close talks regularly about how much they hate their private insurance and how they can't wait to finally be on Medicare. I completely understand wanting better implementation of taxes, and fairer distribution of taxes based on means, but not so much the idea of not having them at all, or only thinking about their direct reduction. So I'm curious - when you look at the budget, what would you cut, by how much, and what would that proportionally save you per year?

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

The actual text of the bill can been seen here [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4728...

jvanderbot 5y ago

I don't think this works to get everyone instantly to a 4 day workweek. I'm guessing it's actually to change the number of hours you have to work to receive full time benefits, and other such bookkeeping.

igetspam 5y ago
It's a short read. It's about hourly compensation and how and when overtime is to be paid. Anything over 32 becomes overtime and is paid at time and half. Anything over eight in a single day is overtime and at twelve hours, it's paid at double. By the very nature, it would encourage employers to have people work fewer hours. The drawback is obviously the hit to those who work hourly and suddenly lose 8h of pay because they get capped at 32. Seems like a potential bargaining chip for raising minimum wage instead. I don't see it passing but if it did, it would likely benefit salaried employees last but more.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Does it exempt software developers?
  - mister_tee 5y ago
    very likely yes, exempts anyone who was already exempt from overtime past 40 hours. It's a very short bill that more or less patches the FLSA to change a couple constants; doesn't look to affect anything about exempt employees.
- danaris 5y ago
  What's needed is a reduction in working hours plus a guarantee that monthly (or weekly/yearly/whatever time period makes most sense) take-home pay will remain largely unchanged—so if we're pushing for a reduction from a 40-hour to a 32-hour work week, hourly wages should be increased by 25% to compensate.

bagels 5y ago

How is the 40 hour work week definition used? Is this intended to cause employers to pay more overtime? Is this intended reduce employee earnings by reducing hours? Was referred to committee 9 months ago, it's probably just going to die there.