4 ms·
The REAL issue with this is the high cost of N employees vs just hour per employee. Training, health insurance, etc If we could drop it so everyone worked 30 h
by gte910h 14y ago
The REAL issue with this is the high cost of N employees vs just hour per employee. Training, health insurance, etc
If we could drop it so everyone worked 30 hours but worked 75% of what they do today, many would jump at it in the higher earning echelons.
Per worker costs strongly incentivise long weeks.
- walshemj 14y agowork (excluding production line blue collar jobs) expands to take up the hours worked for example back in the 70's the Uk went to a 3 day week during the power strikes funnily the output of the country did not go down by 3/5.
- hrabago 14y agoPerhaps the overhead could be considered as part of the overall costs. I would still appreciate the choice of having to work 75% of the time for 65% pay if I understood that the difference was due to health coverage and other benefits. In other words, the transparency would help. I strongly believe I'd still sign up for it.
- gte910h 14y agoI'd just prefer to see medical benefits untie from employers (not for moral, but for reducing worker overhead reasons). Additionally, under the current sphere 'part time' workers don't usually get company benefits.
- sliverstorm 14y agoNot to mention, industries with a shortage of quality workers would necessarily contract.
- graue 14y agoThis assumes a linear relationship between hours worked and amount accomplished. I doubt such a relationship holds after 5 or 6 hours. I bet many programmers would get more done in a 6-hour day than an 8-hour day, due to increased energy.