3 ms·

I think there should be a lot more focus on getting people to work only 40 hours. There are lots of people who have to work overtime without getting paid extra

I think there should be a lot more focus on getting people to work only 40 hours. There are lots of people who have to work overtime without getting paid extra for it. There are lots of "managers" who aren't or managers who are paid little that have to work overtime. The exempt salary limit should be much higher. I think the software development exemption should be removed but at least we get well paid. Some countries have maximum hours. Equally bad, there are lots of hourly employees who work 32 hours and would like to work 40 hours and get benefits. Pushing 32 hour work week feels tone deaf when lots of people aren't working 40 hours.

belval 4y ago
I'd argue that one comes with the other though. Once 32 hours is normalized, 40+ hours becomes an outlier, which means that 50+ becomes an extreme outlier. Within a few decades culture changes and working 40 hours would be looked at in much the same way we work at 50+ hours. Even then there will still be people working 80+ hours to make ends meet but fixing that is basically fixing poverty which is definitely much harder.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  Agreed
thescriptkiddie 4y ago
> there are lots of hourly employees who work 32 hours and would like to work 40 hours and get benefits. benefits should not depend on how many hours your work
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  yep: multiple things can in fact improve
- nateb2022 4y ago
  >benefits should not depend on how many hours your work Ideally, yes. However, there are many small businesses and franchises who cannot afford to offer benefits to all their part-time workers. This would result in a marked decrease/elimination of part-time employment opportunities -- opportunities often essential to the livelihood of the working class, who work part-time to supplement their full-time income. For many of these people, who are among the hardest workers in our society, that part-time job is the only thing holding preventing them from sinking under. They don't want, or need, benefits from their part-time job when they already receive benefits from their full-time job, receive federal/state sponsored health insurance OR pay for their own especially when said benefits come at the cost of their ability to financially support themselves. Most people would rather be able to provide for themselves than exist in an inescapable state of welfare-dependency brought on by well-intentioned but damaging initiatives.
- euroderf 4y ago
  Can't a legislature mandate that the benefits currently available to full-time workers (currently defined as ~40h/wk) are suddenly now available to full-time workers (newly redefined as 32h/wk) ? No new assertions of power, just a redefinition of a threshold.

belval 4y ago

I'd argue that one comes with the other though. Once 32 hours is normalized, 40+ hours becomes an outlier, which means that 50+ becomes an extreme outlier. Within a few decades culture changes and working 40 hours would be looked at in much the same way we work at 50+ hours. Even then there will still be people working 80+ hours to make ends meet but fixing that is basically fixing poverty which is definitely much harder.

aaomidi 4y ago
Agreed

thescriptkiddie 4y ago

> there are lots of hourly employees who work 32 hours and would like to work 40 hours and get benefits. benefits should not depend on how many hours your work

wahnfrieden 4y ago
yep: multiple things can in fact improve
nateb2022 4y ago
>benefits should not depend on how many hours your work Ideally, yes. However, there are many small businesses and franchises who cannot afford to offer benefits to all their part-time workers. This would result in a marked decrease/elimination of part-time employment opportunities -- opportunities often essential to the livelihood of the working class, who work part-time to supplement their full-time income. For many of these people, who are among the hardest workers in our society, that part-time job is the only thing holding preventing them from sinking under. They don't want, or need, benefits from their part-time job when they already receive benefits from their full-time job, receive federal/state sponsored health insurance OR pay for their own especially when said benefits come at the cost of their ability to financially support themselves. Most people would rather be able to provide for themselves than exist in an inescapable state of welfare-dependency brought on by well-intentioned but damaging initiatives.
euroderf 4y ago
Can't a legislature mandate that the benefits currently available to full-time workers (currently defined as ~40h/wk) are suddenly now available to full-time workers (newly redefined as 32h/wk) ? No new assertions of power, just a redefinition of a threshold.