4 ms·

I think it's worth considering that, in the US, the ultimate leap from 5 to 4 day work weeks would require a change in labor laws to mandate full-time status an

I think it's worth considering that, in the US, the ultimate leap from 5 to 4 day work weeks would require a change in labor laws to mandate full-time status and overtime pay cutoff at 32 hours/week. Close to 60% of US workers are hourly. I can't predict all of the ramifications from that kind of change, but I have to imagine it would largely benefit workers. I wish we had a major political party that was at least willing to start the conversation. We all know this "40 hours" nonsense is just historical happenstance, not some ideal or even well-reasoned number, let alone balanced in the interest of the overwhelming majority (working people).

rodgerd 4y ago
> We all know this "40 hours" nonsense is just historical happenstance It's not happenstance. It's something workers fought and sometimes died to win against an incumbent 6 or 7 day, 10 plus hour a day norm.
- MBCook 4y ago
  Right, but it’s not some magical optimal number. It’s lets you have 3 shifts per day (3 x 8 = 24) for full coverage. That also fits with the idea that it gave you a balanced life. 8 hours at work, 8 hours asleep, 8 hours for the rest. It was a convenient number below the old, much worse, standard. People act like 40 hours is some kind of natural law that can’t be questioned. It absolutely can be.
Frost1x 4y ago
>We all know this "40 hours" nonsense is just historical happenstance, not some ideal or even well-reasoned number, let alone balanced in the interest of the overwhelming majority (working people). The more and more I see cases like this that exist, the more I feel it's yet more supporting evidence that the US is a failing democracy. We can point fingers and play responsibility games, we can claim its minority protection (are wealthy and powerful individuals really a minority that need more protection in our current structure or should they even be considered a minority), but at the end of the day it doesn't seem to be working in some respects. If we aren't seeing labor law improvements and most fall in labor, something seems amiss. I'm not advocating for mob rule, there are very good reasons for minority protections, but in some cases when the majority of a democratic society abhors the state of affairs yet we continually have no significant influence to at least try something different, that to me says we're in a failing or failed democracy charading around as a democracy. The older I get, the more I want to call a duck a duck if it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck.
- flangola7 4y ago
  We had a literal coup attempt two years ago. Of course our democracy is faulting, it's been disintegrating for many years.
- np- 4y ago
  To be pedantic, the US has never been a democracy, it has always been a republic and it was built in to give land equal or more power than individuals. Though I don’t deny that it seems to be either in or approaching a failure mode (though perhaps the observant may notice it never worked as it was advertised even from Day 1, there was never really a success mode).
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    What exactly is pedantic about that? The US is a constitutional democracy and a republic. Just like India. Unlike the UK that's a constitutional democracy and a monarchy. It's like saying something is "technically not a car, it's electric".
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      Correct! This thing about "republic not a democracy" is so absurd. Don't people learn this stuff in middle school?
    - a_humean 4y ago
      Generally when I see someone say "republic not a democracy" they are typically Americans with (far) right authoritarian/illiberal political beliefs that you don't say out loud in polite company, but if you call them out on it you get called an alarmist.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      The proper word here would be "archaic" - it's a correct claim per se, but they're using a definition of "democracy" that was the prevailing one at the time the US constitution was written.
- ghiculescu 4y ago
Bloating 4y ago
40 hours really has to due with overtime rates, advocated by progressive companies back in the day. 20 years ago, Progressive companies advocated for company gyms, day-care, unlimited M&Ms and ping-pong tables. Now, its work from home (for now.) Otherwise can we question the need to differentiate full-time vs part-time? Its certainly arbitrary, and mostly related to whether one qualifies for benefits. In the case of benefits, it may be less than 40 hours.
464746474 4y ago
[flagged]

rodgerd 4y ago

> We all know this "40 hours" nonsense is just historical happenstance It's not happenstance. It's something workers fought and sometimes died to win against an incumbent 6 or 7 day, 10 plus hour a day norm.

MBCook 4y ago
Right, but it’s not some magical optimal number. It’s lets you have 3 shifts per day (3 x 8 = 24) for full coverage. That also fits with the idea that it gave you a balanced life. 8 hours at work, 8 hours asleep, 8 hours for the rest. It was a convenient number below the old, much worse, standard. People act like 40 hours is some kind of natural law that can’t be questioned. It absolutely can be.

Frost1x 4y ago

>We all know this "40 hours" nonsense is just historical happenstance, not some ideal or even well-reasoned number, let alone balanced in the interest of the overwhelming majority (working people). The more and more I see cases like this that exist, the more I feel it's yet more supporting evidence that the US is a failing democracy. We can point fingers and play responsibility games, we can claim its minority protection (are wealthy and powerful individuals really a minority that need more protection in our current structure or should they even be considered a minority), but at the end of the day it doesn't seem to be working in some respects. If we aren't seeing labor law improvements and most fall in labor, something seems amiss. I'm not advocating for mob rule, there are very good reasons for minority protections, but in some cases when the majority of a democratic society abhors the state of affairs yet we continually have no significant influence to at least try something different, that to me says we're in a failing or failed democracy charading around as a democracy. The older I get, the more I want to call a duck a duck if it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck.

flangola7 4y ago
We had a literal coup attempt two years ago. Of course our democracy is faulting, it's been disintegrating for many years.
np- 4y ago
To be pedantic, the US has never been a democracy, it has always been a republic and it was built in to give land equal or more power than individuals. Though I don’t deny that it seems to be either in or approaching a failure mode (though perhaps the observant may notice it never worked as it was advertised even from Day 1, there was never really a success mode).
- renewiltord 4y ago
  What exactly is pedantic about that? The US is a constitutional democracy and a republic. Just like India. Unlike the UK that's a constitutional democracy and a monarchy. It's like saying something is "technically not a car, it's electric".
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    Correct! This thing about "republic not a democracy" is so absurd. Don't people learn this stuff in middle school?
  - a_humean 4y ago
    Generally when I see someone say "republic not a democracy" they are typically Americans with (far) right authoritarian/illiberal political beliefs that you don't say out loud in polite company, but if you call them out on it you get called an alarmist.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    The proper word here would be "archaic" - it's a correct claim per se, but they're using a definition of "democracy" that was the prevailing one at the time the US constitution was written.
ghiculescu 4y ago

Bloating 4y ago

40 hours really has to due with overtime rates, advocated by progressive companies back in the day. 20 years ago, Progressive companies advocated for company gyms, day-care, unlimited M&Ms and ping-pong tables. Now, its work from home (for now.) Otherwise can we question the need to differentiate full-time vs part-time? Its certainly arbitrary, and mostly related to whether one qualifies for benefits. In the case of benefits, it may be less than 40 hours.

464746474 4y ago

[flagged]