6 ms·

They aren’t just going to give you a free day off. There would be a commensurate decrease in your pay. I don’t find the 5 days/week to be “irrational”, “irrat

They aren’t just going to give you a free day off. There would be a commensurate decrease in your pay. I don’t find the 5 days/week to be “irrational”, “irrational” to whom? It’s completely rational from an employers perspective that they have a job to fulfill and it requires employees to complete the job. If they have people working 4 days /week, they need coverage for the other days. It’s not rational for the customers either, who want everything now. I think you need to get out of the Silicon Valley bubble and see what most people do for work. Insurance claims and other service type things don’t just happen 4 days/week, meaning they would have to hire more workers to accommodate. What will end up happening, is they will just make everyone part time. Be careful what you wish for.

swagasaurus-rex 4y ago
> they will just make everyone part time. The implicit threat here is withdrawal of benefits - specifically health care insurance
- irrational 4y ago
  So the USA doesn’t have universal healthcare so that it can be used to blackmail employees?
  - zach_garwood 4y ago
    Correct
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Closer to the opposite - lack of universal healthcare in the USA is a huge downside for most employers here. And I suspect that any decent study would find that just not offering real healthcare (to employees) is 2+ orders of magnitude more common than "or else you won't get healthcare" blackmail.
  - spoils19 4y ago
    Healthcare is a benefit and the lack of universal healthcare has resulted in a competitive market where customers are free to choose the level of care for their need and budget. Universal healthcare is the worst of all worlds, comparatively.
    - irrational 4y ago
      I’m sure all the people who have gone bankrupt from medical bills appreciate that sentiment. My brother in laws sister was recently diagnosed with cancer. Before she was diagnosed, she quit her job with benefits to stay home and take care of her father with advanced Parkinson’s. Her cancer is treatable, but she doesn’t have and can’t get insurance and doesn’t qualify for government help. Her choice is death or go into such incredible debt that she will never have hope to pay it off. She is 29. She has chosen death.
    - piva00 4y ago
      How are customers having a heart attack free to choose the level of care for their need and budget? Or poor cancer patients? Yes, Medicare might help but that brings up another layer of bureaucracy and constraints to be managed by the patient. A society is much better when it's healthy, leaving health to be taken care by the law of the jungle isn't really building a healthy society.
- t0mas88 4y ago
  Huh what? You don't get health insurance when you work part time in the US?
  - zacharycohn 4y ago
    There are a few companies that buck the trend, but typically, no. You have to be full time (frequently defined as 32 hours a week or more) to qualify for company-subsidized health insurance.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    many companies keep their workers under full time to save the cost. in effect this is a handout from the govt to businesses and landlords to enable growth with low wages
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    Correct. This is how our country works because we are a nation of fools who worship the most wealthy among us.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
just-ok 4y ago
The OP notes they’re referring explicitly to jobs with a 5 day work week, so your comments re: service industry, etc. are valid, they’re already excluded. Irrational might not be the right word; arbitrary is pretty accurate, though. If productivity and output change minimally, why should expectations or pay? Let’s be honest, the typical 5-day office job work week the OP is referencing has a LOT of downtime.
- soperj 4y ago
  > has a LOT of downtime the way I look at it, I'm being paid for being available during those work hours, not necessarily doing work during all those work hours.
  - grog454 4y ago
    Ok, but not every job is like this. A lot of my communication is done asynchronously already. I'm paid 95% for productivity and 5% for availability.
    - thunky 4y ago
      Say you're hyper productive and can accomplish your job in only one hour per week, do you think you should still be entitled to your full salary?
      - grog454 4y ago
        Yes. That's how it's worked for the ~7 years I worked for myself. I'm currently working a full time remote job in addition to managing my own company, and there it's more like 75/25 productivity/availability. Unless I'm on call, then its flipped. If I was working retail, I suppose it'd be more like 5/95 productivity/availability.
        thunky 4y ago
        That's great. I commented elsehwere that I think it's all good as long as the arrangement between the employer and employee is honest. Is your full time remote employer aware that you're not really "full time"?
thombat 4y ago
Many customer-facing occupations provide for extended opening hours, Saturdays and even Sundays. Personally I'd be thrilled if half the organizations I deal with went beyond Mon-Fri 9-5, and to do so they'll need some extra staff.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  Even those that are only open 9-5 M-F are not that hard to keep operational with a 4 day work week. As soon as you have five people, every person gets a different day off during the week. Plenty of people will be happy to have days other than Monday and Friday as well; that breaks up the work week so you have it easier to recover, AND it lets you use that day for errands while everything is open.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  rotations. yes you get it, the point of labor negotiating for fewer days is that employers don't want to do it because it could be more expensive for them in various ways. what you are really complaining about isn't workers not wanting to keep businesses open longer, it's that employer cost-cutting measures include narrower service hours, and why would workers take it upon themselves to donate their time to solving that if their organized negotiating power is such that it would be charity to the owners
flawn 4y ago
A/B Weeks would be interesting but also kinda detaching one half of workers from the other half.
jrumbut 4y ago
No one from September 2019 would believe you if you told them about the work from home policies in place right now for millions of people who were expected to be seated at their desk at 9:00 (or 8:30) until 5:00 three years ago. The world isn't static, tradeoffs can change.
- scarby2 4y ago
  > No one from September 2019 would believe you if you told them about the work from home policies in place right now for millions of people who were expected to be seated at their desk at 9:00 (or 8:30) until 5:00 three years ago There were lots of us who couldn't believe that so many employees had to be at a desk from 9 - 5 in industries where it made very little sense.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    yes but it took millions of people discussing and organizing with their coworkers and pushing back on their employers in various ways to earn it as solidly as it's been. it doesn't just change with the wind or only because employers change their minds about environmental factors
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  I think part of OP's point is that there would be tradeoffs. Reducing work hours by 1/5th will reduce work output by some large fraction of that. Companies would have to compensate for that by hiring more employees or reducing their products or services, either of which will tend to increase prices. Price increases or wage cuts would cause people who are in constrained financial situations to have to look for a 2nd job, thereby negating the effect of the policy. Sure things can change, but there are underlying realities which constrain how they can change.
it_citizen 4y ago
One thing I didn't realize until recently is that working 4 days instead of 5 does not slash your salary by a fifth given that your tax bracket will also be lower.
dfxm12 4y ago
They aren’t just going to give you a free day off. There would be a commensurate decrease in your pay. This is the realist view, and it shows the power imbalance between employee and employer. It's easy for those with the power in this relationship to say "if you want to reduce work, expect reduced pay". However, worker productivity has risen for decades and compensation/hours worked haven't budged anywhere close to match. Employers will always say "meet me in the middle" while taking a step backwards. Employers in the US can get away with it because workers are replaceable. The government has their back. Most of the (paltry) welfare benefits from the government have work requirements, so you have to take jobs with bad pay (and you'll be fired if you complain). Individual workers have no power in this relationship. Even recent fed policy is put in place to promote unemployment because workers were gaining just a little ground.
bowsamic 4y ago
Why did you analyse the situation from everyone's perspective except the worker's?

swagasaurus-rex 4y ago

> they will just make everyone part time. The implicit threat here is withdrawal of benefits - specifically health care insurance

irrational 4y ago
So the USA doesn’t have universal healthcare so that it can be used to blackmail employees?
- zach_garwood 4y ago
  Correct
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Closer to the opposite - lack of universal healthcare in the USA is a huge downside for most employers here. And I suspect that any decent study would find that just not offering real healthcare (to employees) is 2+ orders of magnitude more common than "or else you won't get healthcare" blackmail.
- spoils19 4y ago
  Healthcare is a benefit and the lack of universal healthcare has resulted in a competitive market where customers are free to choose the level of care for their need and budget. Universal healthcare is the worst of all worlds, comparatively.
  - irrational 4y ago
    I’m sure all the people who have gone bankrupt from medical bills appreciate that sentiment. My brother in laws sister was recently diagnosed with cancer. Before she was diagnosed, she quit her job with benefits to stay home and take care of her father with advanced Parkinson’s. Her cancer is treatable, but she doesn’t have and can’t get insurance and doesn’t qualify for government help. Her choice is death or go into such incredible debt that she will never have hope to pay it off. She is 29. She has chosen death.
  - piva00 4y ago
    How are customers having a heart attack free to choose the level of care for their need and budget? Or poor cancer patients? Yes, Medicare might help but that brings up another layer of bureaucracy and constraints to be managed by the patient. A society is much better when it's healthy, leaving health to be taken care by the law of the jungle isn't really building a healthy society.
t0mas88 4y ago
Huh what? You don't get health insurance when you work part time in the US?
- zacharycohn 4y ago
  There are a few companies that buck the trend, but typically, no. You have to be full time (frequently defined as 32 hours a week or more) to qualify for company-subsidized health insurance.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  many companies keep their workers under full time to save the cost. in effect this is a handout from the govt to businesses and landlords to enable growth with low wages
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  Correct. This is how our country works because we are a nation of fools who worship the most wealthy among us.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

just-ok 4y ago

The OP notes they’re referring explicitly to jobs with a 5 day work week, so your comments re: service industry, etc. are valid, they’re already excluded. Irrational might not be the right word; arbitrary is pretty accurate, though. If productivity and output change minimally, why should expectations or pay? Let’s be honest, the typical 5-day office job work week the OP is referencing has a LOT of downtime.

soperj 4y ago
> has a LOT of downtime the way I look at it, I'm being paid for being available during those work hours, not necessarily doing work during all those work hours.
- grog454 4y ago
  Ok, but not every job is like this. A lot of my communication is done asynchronously already. I'm paid 95% for productivity and 5% for availability.
  - thunky 4y ago
    Say you're hyper productive and can accomplish your job in only one hour per week, do you think you should still be entitled to your full salary?
    - grog454 4y ago
      Yes. That's how it's worked for the ~7 years I worked for myself. I'm currently working a full time remote job in addition to managing my own company, and there it's more like 75/25 productivity/availability. Unless I'm on call, then its flipped. If I was working retail, I suppose it'd be more like 5/95 productivity/availability.
      - thunky 4y ago
        That's great. I commented elsehwere that I think it's all good as long as the arrangement between the employer and employee is honest. Is your full time remote employer aware that you're not really "full time"?

thombat 4y ago

Many customer-facing occupations provide for extended opening hours, Saturdays and even Sundays. Personally I'd be thrilled if half the organizations I deal with went beyond Mon-Fri 9-5, and to do so they'll need some extra staff.

lostcolony 4y ago
Even those that are only open 9-5 M-F are not that hard to keep operational with a 4 day work week. As soon as you have five people, every person gets a different day off during the week. Plenty of people will be happy to have days other than Monday and Friday as well; that breaks up the work week so you have it easier to recover, AND it lets you use that day for errands while everything is open.
wahnfrieden 4y ago
rotations. yes you get it, the point of labor negotiating for fewer days is that employers don't want to do it because it could be more expensive for them in various ways. what you are really complaining about isn't workers not wanting to keep businesses open longer, it's that employer cost-cutting measures include narrower service hours, and why would workers take it upon themselves to donate their time to solving that if their organized negotiating power is such that it would be charity to the owners

flawn 4y ago

A/B Weeks would be interesting but also kinda detaching one half of workers from the other half.

jrumbut 4y ago

No one from September 2019 would believe you if you told them about the work from home policies in place right now for millions of people who were expected to be seated at their desk at 9:00 (or 8:30) until 5:00 three years ago. The world isn't static, tradeoffs can change.

scarby2 4y ago
> No one from September 2019 would believe you if you told them about the work from home policies in place right now for millions of people who were expected to be seated at their desk at 9:00 (or 8:30) until 5:00 three years ago There were lots of us who couldn't believe that so many employees had to be at a desk from 9 - 5 in industries where it made very little sense.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  yes but it took millions of people discussing and organizing with their coworkers and pushing back on their employers in various ways to earn it as solidly as it's been. it doesn't just change with the wind or only because employers change their minds about environmental factors
seti0Cha 4y ago
I think part of OP's point is that there would be tradeoffs. Reducing work hours by 1/5th will reduce work output by some large fraction of that. Companies would have to compensate for that by hiring more employees or reducing their products or services, either of which will tend to increase prices. Price increases or wage cuts would cause people who are in constrained financial situations to have to look for a 2nd job, thereby negating the effect of the policy. Sure things can change, but there are underlying realities which constrain how they can change.

it_citizen 4y ago

One thing I didn't realize until recently is that working 4 days instead of 5 does not slash your salary by a fifth given that your tax bracket will also be lower.

dfxm12 4y ago

They aren’t just going to give you a free day off. There would be a commensurate decrease in your pay. This is the realist view, and it shows the power imbalance between employee and employer. It's easy for those with the power in this relationship to say "if you want to reduce work, expect reduced pay". However, worker productivity has risen for decades and compensation/hours worked haven't budged anywhere close to match. Employers will always say "meet me in the middle" while taking a step backwards. Employers in the US can get away with it because workers are replaceable. The government has their back. Most of the (paltry) welfare benefits from the government have work requirements, so you have to take jobs with bad pay (and you'll be fired if you complain). Individual workers have no power in this relationship. Even recent fed policy is put in place to promote unemployment because workers were gaining just a little ground.

bowsamic 4y ago

Why did you analyse the situation from everyone's perspective except the worker's?