8 ms·

Why does government set N hours at all? It's must be up to business! E.g., if I have a software company, I want my employees to work 20 hours a week. Isn't it o

by homakov 12y ago

Why does government set N hours at all? It's must be up to business! E.g., if I have a software company, I want my employees to work 20 hours a week. Isn't it obviously better way for everyone?

d55 12y ago
Then you'd have the 60 hour work week pretty quick.
- homakov 12y ago
  I'd quit. I'm a specialist and will easily find another job.
  - Loughla 12y ago
    You seem not to understand the depth of that statement. It's not that one company would have excess hours; all of them would. So, you would be free to find a new position. . . at another company with a 60 hour work week. Look at the history of the labor movement. Those in power tended to abuse those that weren't; long hours, unsafe conditions, etc. Now, unless you work in a coal mine or foundry, we can count out unsafe work conditions. That really leaves one other option. . . . . .
    - Sharlin 12y ago
      And it's not just about abuse of power - 60-hour-workweek companites would simply rather quickly outcompete those that had 40 hour weeks, except in rare cases.
    - homakov 12y ago
      This is so senseless i dont know how to respond. It is like saying legal guns will increase the crime rate because they can kill. Companies compete to get specialists (look at how many perks average startup or google offers). Low skilled jobs? Who cares about them.
      - Loughla 12y ago
        You know, I spent all night pondering your statement, and I came to the conclusion that you're either incredibly sheltered and immature, or a complete ass. First off, it's not the same. There is no, or very low incentive for gun owners to commit crimes; especially when compared to the possible consequences. If there are no protections for workers, though, there is every incentive for businesses to abuse their employees. History proves this statement true. That is, of course, unless I'm just not aware of a number of businesses who willingly limited their abuse before the labor movement. And yes, the average startup and google and other tech sector businesses offer good perks. . . . That is not normal for a majority of careers, you know that, right? And this, "Low skilled jobs? Who cares about them." Is either one of the most terrible statements I've read on HN, or one of the best trolls I've seen; boy, oh boy, did it get me worked up. That is a terrible way to live. Do you understand how much of your life relies on low skilled jobs? Do you buy your food from a grocery store? Do you shop for clothes? Do you purchase anything that you don't personally create? At some point, low-skilled workers interacted with the goods you purchase. The attitude that the only reason people work low-skill jobs is because they aren't smart or capable enough for anything else is very, very immature and incredibly ignorant. Specifically, your attitude that they apparently deserve to be treated worse and (in the context of our conversation) deserve to be abused by their employer because of their low-skilled jobs is awful, just simply awful. You should be ashamed.
_delirium 12y ago
In this case, it's exactly as you say: the employer has decided to reduce its employees' working hours. It just happens that the employer is also the government. The experiment in Göteborg discussed in this article involves only municipal employees: the city is experimenting with moving its employees to 6-hour work days, and seeing what effect there is on productivity, morale, and other such measures. There's no requirement that other employers follow suit. I believe even the 40-hour week is not statutory. At least in Denmark (maybe the same in Sweden?), the basic parameters of employment (maximum working hours, overtime pay, minimum wages, etc.), are negotiated between the employer's confederation and the union confederation, rather than set by statute. However, since the unionization rate is over 90% and the basic parameters are set through overall framework agreements (applying to all workplaces covered by the confederations, not separate company-by-company negotiations), these negotiated agreements de-facto set the conditions at almost all workplaces. The Danish switch in 1992 from 40-hour to 37-hour weeks, for example, was entirely through union negotiations, not done by legislation.
- vidarh 12y ago
  In the EU, all countries are bound by the Working Time Directive unless they have exemptions (I think only the UK has any major exemptions), which does not make the 40-hour week statutory, but does set an upper limit (with some exceptions) at 48 hours/week.
- Cederfjard 12y ago
  > At least in Denmark (maybe the same in Sweden?) Yes, the same is true up here.
levosmetalo 12y ago
No, because business and employees are not in equal barguaining position. Business always have an advantage and in unregulated markets they are more than happy to take advantage of their power position. On the other hand, you can see these regulations as a collective bargaining between employees and business. Individual employees have no negotiating power against any corporation, but they all together can elect a government that will have an upper hand there, so it's just market behaviours. And no, what you said about 20 hours work week doesn't work like that. I believe that many employers would be happy to pay only 20 effective hours a week for a software engineers, but sorry, my workday consist of some time needed to concentrate, get in the flow, release some stress, let the brain work in the hammock time, and you also need to pay for this, since you won't get these effective 20 hours a week without these other 20 hours. It just doesn't work like that. Maybe I would agree to be paid only for 20 effective hours a week, but my rate in that case will easily go double.
- nirnira 12y ago
  Perhaps people who rely upon centralised political power to protect them from competition in the supply of their chosen labour services should seek to differentiate themselves by developing more valuable skills. Yes, I know, it's a terribly radical idea, not blaming evil businesses and all.
spacehome 12y ago
In theory you have a point, but historically speaking, individual businesses have been quite reluctant to allow shorter hours than what prevails in society. Progress on this metric almost always comes from societal movements and government intervention.
- homakov 12y ago
  Lets set 40 hours as max and 10 hours as min. Now it is flexible enough.
  - lilsunnybee 12y ago
    In the US there is no minimum as far as how many hours an employed person can work; in the US it's called part-time labor, but this also causes huge problems with underemployment and poverty wages.
vidarh 12y ago
When it was left up to business, we had 14 hour+ days. It took many decades of extensive strikes and demonstrations, during which dozens of workers were killed, before the 8 hour day became the norm. The US union that is now the AFL-CIO leadership in pushing for the 8 hour day led directly to making May 1st the international day for labor demonstrations, in part in commemoration of the Chicago Haymarket Massacre. If you want your employers to be able work less, nothing is stopping you most places. But experience is that not having an upper bound caused employers to take massive advantage.
- codehotter 12y ago
  You seem to know a lot about this and it's something I've always been interested in: When laws were passed to mandate 8 hour work days, what % of companies had 8 hour work days already? 10%? 20%? 80%? Nowadays we know that total productivity is higher if you have 8 hour work days, even though you work less total hours, because your productivity per hour is much higher. Was something like this known at the time? Or was the push to 8 hour work days only so that people could spend time with their family? What kinds of arguments were used?
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day Is a good read on the subject and the referenced links are even better (as usual). The 12 hour workday had to be fought for... that tells you something about what %age of employers had 8 hour workdays already, left to their own devices that percentage would be very close to 0. Each and every reduction in hours had to be fought for somehow. When I was an employer in Canada and we had the standard NL holiday/compensation package our employees were so happy, and other companies nearby cautioned me not to be too open about it lest it 'would spread' and their employees would demand similar. Employers do not tend to be on the same side as their employees in arguments like these (though they should be: happy employee = loyal employee).
  - vidarh 12y ago
    Pretty much nobody had 8 hour work days. One of the earliest known instances of someone demanding, and getting, an 8 hour workday was a English-born settler in New Zealand, who worked as a carpenter. In 1840, he negotiated an 8 hour working day for some building work, and he started arguing for it with other workers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Duncan_Parnell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Duncan_Parnell Here's a PDF that gives some stats from 1890 until the 1930's: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4124.pdf http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4124.pdf Prior to the 1890's, it took decades to even get down to the 12, and then 10 hour workday. I don't remember specifically when there started being actual research into the productivity effects of shorter work days, but it definitively was not known at the outset - at the outset, it was driven by workers rights movements.
rayiner 12y ago
If you've got a winner-take-all system, and a small minority is willing to work much longer than everyone else, you end up with a situation where most people work a lot longer than they would prefer to, because the penalty for working 20% less isn't 20% less income, it's a dramatic drop in income. It's just a specific instance of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom. Work hour limits are a reasonable solution in a democratic society where the majority doesn't want to be beholden to the work habits of the minority. Although, such a society should expect that some of those long-working folks will emigrate to countries like the U.S. where they can get outsized rewards for working longer than other people.

by homakov 12y ago

Why does government set N hours at all? It's must be up to business! E.g., if I have a software company, I want my employees to work 20 hours a week. Isn't it obviously better way for everyone?

d55 12y ago

Then you'd have the 60 hour work week pretty quick.

homakov 12y ago
I'd quit. I'm a specialist and will easily find another job.
- Loughla 12y ago
  You seem not to understand the depth of that statement. It's not that one company would have excess hours; all of them would. So, you would be free to find a new position. . . at another company with a 60 hour work week. Look at the history of the labor movement. Those in power tended to abuse those that weren't; long hours, unsafe conditions, etc. Now, unless you work in a coal mine or foundry, we can count out unsafe work conditions. That really leaves one other option. . . . . .
  - Sharlin 12y ago
    And it's not just about abuse of power - 60-hour-workweek companites would simply rather quickly outcompete those that had 40 hour weeks, except in rare cases.
  - homakov 12y ago
    This is so senseless i dont know how to respond. It is like saying legal guns will increase the crime rate because they can kill. Companies compete to get specialists (look at how many perks average startup or google offers). Low skilled jobs? Who cares about them.
    - Loughla 12y ago
      You know, I spent all night pondering your statement, and I came to the conclusion that you're either incredibly sheltered and immature, or a complete ass. First off, it's not the same. There is no, or very low incentive for gun owners to commit crimes; especially when compared to the possible consequences. If there are no protections for workers, though, there is every incentive for businesses to abuse their employees. History proves this statement true. That is, of course, unless I'm just not aware of a number of businesses who willingly limited their abuse before the labor movement. And yes, the average startup and google and other tech sector businesses offer good perks. . . . That is not normal for a majority of careers, you know that, right? And this, "Low skilled jobs? Who cares about them." Is either one of the most terrible statements I've read on HN, or one of the best trolls I've seen; boy, oh boy, did it get me worked up. That is a terrible way to live. Do you understand how much of your life relies on low skilled jobs? Do you buy your food from a grocery store? Do you shop for clothes? Do you purchase anything that you don't personally create? At some point, low-skilled workers interacted with the goods you purchase. The attitude that the only reason people work low-skill jobs is because they aren't smart or capable enough for anything else is very, very immature and incredibly ignorant. Specifically, your attitude that they apparently deserve to be treated worse and (in the context of our conversation) deserve to be abused by their employer because of their low-skilled jobs is awful, just simply awful. You should be ashamed.

_delirium 12y ago

In this case, it's exactly as you say: the employer has decided to reduce its employees' working hours. It just happens that the employer is also the government. The experiment in Göteborg discussed in this article involves only municipal employees: the city is experimenting with moving its employees to 6-hour work days, and seeing what effect there is on productivity, morale, and other such measures. There's no requirement that other employers follow suit. I believe even the 40-hour week is not statutory. At least in Denmark (maybe the same in Sweden?), the basic parameters of employment (maximum working hours, overtime pay, minimum wages, etc.), are negotiated between the employer's confederation and the union confederation, rather than set by statute. However, since the unionization rate is over 90% and the basic parameters are set through overall framework agreements (applying to all workplaces covered by the confederations, not separate company-by-company negotiations), these negotiated agreements de-facto set the conditions at almost all workplaces. The Danish switch in 1992 from 40-hour to 37-hour weeks, for example, was entirely through union negotiations, not done by legislation.

vidarh 12y ago
In the EU, all countries are bound by the Working Time Directive unless they have exemptions (I think only the UK has any major exemptions), which does not make the 40-hour week statutory, but does set an upper limit (with some exceptions) at 48 hours/week.
Cederfjard 12y ago
> At least in Denmark (maybe the same in Sweden?) Yes, the same is true up here.

levosmetalo 12y ago

No, because business and employees are not in equal barguaining position. Business always have an advantage and in unregulated markets they are more than happy to take advantage of their power position. On the other hand, you can see these regulations as a collective bargaining between employees and business. Individual employees have no negotiating power against any corporation, but they all together can elect a government that will have an upper hand there, so it's just market behaviours. And no, what you said about 20 hours work week doesn't work like that. I believe that many employers would be happy to pay only 20 effective hours a week for a software engineers, but sorry, my workday consist of some time needed to concentrate, get in the flow, release some stress, let the brain work in the hammock time, and you also need to pay for this, since you won't get these effective 20 hours a week without these other 20 hours. It just doesn't work like that. Maybe I would agree to be paid only for 20 effective hours a week, but my rate in that case will easily go double.

nirnira 12y ago
Perhaps people who rely upon centralised political power to protect them from competition in the supply of their chosen labour services should seek to differentiate themselves by developing more valuable skills. Yes, I know, it's a terribly radical idea, not blaming evil businesses and all.

spacehome 12y ago

In theory you have a point, but historically speaking, individual businesses have been quite reluctant to allow shorter hours than what prevails in society. Progress on this metric almost always comes from societal movements and government intervention.

homakov 12y ago
Lets set 40 hours as max and 10 hours as min. Now it is flexible enough.
- lilsunnybee 12y ago
  In the US there is no minimum as far as how many hours an employed person can work; in the US it's called part-time labor, but this also causes huge problems with underemployment and poverty wages.

vidarh 12y ago

When it was left up to business, we had 14 hour+ days. It took many decades of extensive strikes and demonstrations, during which dozens of workers were killed, before the 8 hour day became the norm. The US union that is now the AFL-CIO leadership in pushing for the 8 hour day led directly to making May 1st the international day for labor demonstrations, in part in commemoration of the Chicago Haymarket Massacre. If you want your employers to be able work less, nothing is stopping you most places. But experience is that not having an upper bound caused employers to take massive advantage.

codehotter 12y ago
You seem to know a lot about this and it's something I've always been interested in: When laws were passed to mandate 8 hour work days, what % of companies had 8 hour work days already? 10%? 20%? 80%? Nowadays we know that total productivity is higher if you have 8 hour work days, even though you work less total hours, because your productivity per hour is much higher. Was something like this known at the time? Or was the push to 8 hour work days only so that people could spend time with their family? What kinds of arguments were used?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day Is a good read on the subject and the referenced links are even better (as usual). The 12 hour workday had to be fought for... that tells you something about what %age of employers had 8 hour workdays already, left to their own devices that percentage would be very close to 0. Each and every reduction in hours had to be fought for somehow. When I was an employer in Canada and we had the standard NL holiday/compensation package our employees were so happy, and other companies nearby cautioned me not to be too open about it lest it 'would spread' and their employees would demand similar. Employers do not tend to be on the same side as their employees in arguments like these (though they should be: happy employee = loyal employee).
- vidarh 12y ago
  Pretty much nobody had 8 hour work days. One of the earliest known instances of someone demanding, and getting, an 8 hour workday was a English-born settler in New Zealand, who worked as a carpenter. In 1840, he negotiated an 8 hour working day for some building work, and he started arguing for it with other workers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Duncan_Parnell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Duncan_Parnell Here's a PDF that gives some stats from 1890 until the 1930's: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4124.pdf http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4124.pdf Prior to the 1890's, it took decades to even get down to the 12, and then 10 hour workday. I don't remember specifically when there started being actual research into the productivity effects of shorter work days, but it definitively was not known at the outset - at the outset, it was driven by workers rights movements.

rayiner 12y ago

If you've got a winner-take-all system, and a small minority is willing to work much longer than everyone else, you end up with a situation where most people work a lot longer than they would prefer to, because the penalty for working 20% less isn't 20% less income, it's a dramatic drop in income. It's just a specific instance of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom. Work hour limits are a reasonable solution in a democratic society where the majority doesn't want to be beholden to the work habits of the minority. Although, such a society should expect that some of those long-working folks will emigrate to countries like the U.S. where they can get outsized rewards for working longer than other people.