Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government

Congressman Reintroduces 32-Hour Workweek Law To 'Increase the Happiness of Humankind' (cnbc.com) 168

Posted by BeauHD from the four-day-workweek dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: Rep. Mark Takano, who represents California's 39th district, has reintroduced his 32-hour Workweek Act to Congress, which, if passed, would officially reduce the standard definition of the workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act. His proposal would mandate overtime pay for any work done after 32 hours, which would encourage business to either pay workers more for longer hours, or shorten their week and hire more people.

The bill applies to non-exempt workers, who typically work hourly jobs across leisure and hospitality, transportation, construction, manufacturing, wholesale, and retail trade. This is by design, Takano tells CNBC Make It. "The serious conversations about the reduced workweek are happening for white-collar professions. What my bill will do is spur conversation about how we democratize this norm to other sectors of the workforce so everybody benefits."

Takano says he's passionate about the 32-hour workweek to bring about "a significant change which will increase the happiness of humankind. That's a very big statement. But it was a big deal 100 years ago when we gave people the weekend by passing the Fair Labor Standards Act," which established a 40-hour workweek and created other worker protections. "These are all part of the social justice discourse," he says. Supporters say a shortened week would push businesses to hire more people, increase labor market participation, and create "healthier competition in the workplace that empowers workers to negotiate for better wages and working conditions," according to a release (PDF) from Takano's team. The report notes that Takano first introduced the legislation in 2021, but it "ultimately failed to advanced in Congress."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congressman Reintroduces 32-Hour Workweek Law To 'Increase the Happiness of Humankind' More

Congressman Reintroduces 32-Hour Workweek Law To 'Increase the Happiness of Humankind'

Comments Filter:

  • Not Gonna Happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Merk42 ( 1906718 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:08PM (#63359939)
    Businesses will bribe, I mean, "lobby", enough politicians for this to not pass.

    • Businesses will bribe, I mean, "lobby", enough politicians for this to not pass.

      Do Lobbyists even work 40h/w -- not counting all their lunches, drinks, dinners, golf outing, [more sketchy activities], etc... with politicians?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aitikin ( 909209 )

        Do Lobbyists even work not counting all their lunches, drinks, dinners, golf outing, [more sketchy activities], etc... with politicians?

        Fixed that with a better wording of the question at hand...

    • Re: Not Gonna Happen (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NagrothAgain ( 4130865 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:54PM (#63360073)
      Most businesses who will feel the impact are small operations that don't have lobbying budgets. They will react by taking a 40 hour position and turning it into two 20 hour positions, making it so life is even rougher for hourly workers.
    • I would vote against it, just as a citizen, for free.

      If the job market goes that way, hey, I'd like it, but I don't think it's something government should force business to do. It amounts to forced job-sharing in a labor market that's already tight enough, and I don't need a 20% paycut.

      • I take it you don't like having weekends off then?

        You do you & I'll take 32 hour weeks & better pay.

        • Would that really give you better pay though?

        • Scare much? A forty hour week allows weekends off.

          What makes you think you won't be taking 32 hours at no hourly increase?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        It seems to me that the average citizen is well over due to more directly benefit from the massive leaps and bounds in productivity that we've experienced since the 40 hour work week was put in place (at least in the US) in 1940 just as we did when that law was passed. Only that will never happen in a million years without government intervention.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I would vote against it, just as a citizen, for free.

        If the job market goes that way, hey, I'd like it, but I don't think it's something government should force business to do. It amounts to forced job-sharing in a labor market that's already tight enough, and I don't need a 20% paycut.

        Government forced the following:
        Weekends
        40 hour workweek
        Occupational Safety and Health
        many other things are forced on business

        I suppose you should go and vote those out too. After all, it worked in the 1900s where everyone wo

      • > hey, I'd like it, but I don't think it's something government should force business to do

        This is always the best philosophy. Never force people with power to stop being shitty to people without. Just hope the people in power decide to turn into hippies overnight and start caring for the little guy.

        Women's rights? Let's not force it. Ending segregation? Let's not force it. Businesses discriminate on basis of gender, sexual preference, etc? Let's not force it. The 40 hour work week? Let's not force it.

        Wh

        • Is everything the government does always right?

          If less is better, why not go for the 24h week? or 16h? or 8h? How do you decide what is optimal? How do you assess the (intended and unintended) consequences of your policy decisions?

    • Businesses will bribe, I mean, "lobby", enough politicians for this to not pass.

      Why would they?

      People needing 2nd jobs to survive is more or less the standard anyway, 3rd jobs not even being that rare anymore. So what does it matter how one divides that 87 hour week anyway?

      In case that wasn't clear: most people are already being paid as if it were for 15-20 hours / week. The salary you get for a formal number of hours has nothing to do with the value you actually produce. This let alone the fact that in between "hourly" or "salaried", benefits or not, mandatory overtime or not, institu

  • Well ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:09PM (#63359943)

    32-Hour Workweek Law To 'Increase the Happiness of Humankind'

    At least the humans in the USA and, to be honest, I'm not even sure about all of them. I mean, how many people have kids and actually look forward to getting away for a bit -- like 40 hours a week? :-)

    • how many people have kids

      Not very many, in the USA at least.

    • Supporters say a shortened week would push businesses to hire more people, increase labor market participation, and create "healthier competition in the workplace that empowers workers to negotiate for better wages and working conditions,"

      What it'll do is force more people to work multiple part time jobs instead of a single full time one. With the attendant decrease in quality of life that juggling multiple jobs entails.

    • I mean, how many people have kids and actually look forward to getting away for a bit -- like 40 hours a week?

      Don't worry, they'll still get to. Only that now they get to spend ther 97 hours a week between three jobs with little overtime, instead of two with plenty.

  • Alternate headline: (Score:5, Funny)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:14PM (#63359955)

    Country with worst mandated annual leave in the world pretends to consider a shortening of work week.

    This and other great shows tonight on Comedy Central.

    • Re:Alternate headline: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by quall ( 1441799 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @08:48PM (#63360401)

      What will 32 hour/week accomplish anyways? That's a stupid idea because people will make less in a state where they can barely afford rent.

      If I'm paying a guy $15/hour for a 40 hour week and I suddenly have to pay him overtime for 8 of those hours, then I'm just going to get a part time employee who I can still pay $15/hour. Not only that, but the "full timer" will only get to make 480/week instead of 600/week because I'm going to schedule him 8 hours less.

      People will need 2 jobs. 1 for their 32 hour pay, and then another part time position to make up the 8 that they're gonna lose. Then what if their 2nd job needs them to pick up a day? These employees could end up working 6 days a week with no overtime due to needing multiple jobs to survive.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        If you think employing someone for 8h is cheaper than paying some overtime for 8h/wk suggests you have never run a business. You have to provide training, handover between employees, administration, etc., for that person working those 8h, and they aren't necessarily going to stick around. And if that week there is only 4h extra work to do, you are still going to have to pay them for 8h them the full amount as those 8h are likely to be more important to them than whether it is 8h or 4h of overtime.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by quall ( 1441799 )

          I admit that my example is too simple. If a business employs even just 4 people, then they wouldn't pay a part timer. They'd hire a new employee instead of paying 32 hours in overtime every week, or they'd invest in automation. The point is that people can barely survive working 40 hours a week in Cali, so how will they survive on 32? Companies are not going to be paying overtime. They're just not. They are going to look at the bottom line and then figure out how to get around these artificial costs that we

    • Here's mine: "CA Representative proposes cutting wages of lowest earners by 20%."

      If I were a company, I'd stop scheduling four people for 40 hours and schedule five for 32 each. Everyone gets a 20% pay cut (except lucky worker #5). Realistically it won't be quite that bad because there's overhead for each worker.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        Here's mine: "CA Representative proposes cutting wages of lowest earners by 20%."

        Worse. CA representative proposes eliminating healthcare for hourly workers and lowering wages of lowest earners by 25%.

        Below 30 hours, you don't have to pay for health insurance anymore. Businesses were willing to pay for healthcare for most of their employees in exchange for 33% more labor per week (40 hours versus 30). But what business owner in his or her right mind is going to agree to pay for health insurance just to get two hours (6%) of additional work per week? No, you can safely assume that a

  • Devil is right there - not even in the details. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:16PM (#63359961)

    ...or shorten their week and hire more people.

    So the immediate and complete foreseeable result is that people who currently have "40 hour jobs" will have their time - and their compensation - slashed by 20%, with some other part-time folks getting their hours.

    I guess an argument should be had about whether or not that's "progress".

    • Its going to create a ton of jobs on paper.

    • Yeah, a 32 hour workweek just equates to a cut in pay. Some businesses will make up the labor shortfall by implementing automation, and the businesses that don't automate will hire additional part-time employees. Very few workers will actually see time-and-a-half pay.

      Also, by lowering the bar of what constitutes full-time labor, even part-time workers would probably see their hours cut back so employers can continue to get out of paying benefits.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      If the claims out there of it being hard to find employees have even a shred of truth to them, then your scenario actually cannot happen. Where would they find the extra part timers?

      Instead, we'll see many full timers working a few hours a week less and making up for it in overtime pay and a few new part timers making a better hourly rate than is offered now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If employers could slash wages 20% they would do it immediately. Pay isn't determined by hours worked or productivity, it's set by the market rate and minimum wage.

      • Re:Devil is right there - not even in the details. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:54PM (#63360075)

        I'm not saying wages are slashed. Their wage stays flat. The company's costs stay flat. The number of people fulfilling the hours is what flexes.

        I'm saying that rather than pay 32 hours regular plus 8 hours overtime, the company will pay two people to remain at 40 hours regular.

        Their "compensation" is cut by 20% - along with the demand on their time.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I'm Europe the laws have been drafted so that there is no loss in wages. See France, for example. Standard 35 hour week.

          I guess that's probably too socialist for the US though.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by hdyoung ( 5182939 )
            Yeah. Not a chance in hell something that carefully-thought-out would come from a US congress. Unless it somehow reduces access to abortion, in which case it’ll be carefully crafted by some legal genius to inflict the maximum amount of human suffering on the most vulnerable individuals.

          • In france they work the whole week though. Many do work more than the 35 hours, at least the folks in france where the company I work for is based do.
            It's just a real pain to find any of them when August rolls around. it's like that whole country goes on vacation at the same time.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
              There's some logic to everyone going on holiday at the same time - it happens in the UK around Christmas - as at least you know nothing will get done.
              France does pretty well out of the 35 hour week, it seems, as although nominal household income in France is significantly lower than in the USA, in PPP terms it is only barely so.

          • It's certainly too socialist for the US of today. But give it a couple more years of people not being able to find work and becoming homeless, and you'll have a sufficient class of people with time to protest in the streets that they (we?) will be able to bring the nation to a halt.

      • If employers could slash wages 20% they would do it immediately.

        There's nothing stopping employers implementing a 32 hour work week right now. The law is setting a maximum.

        Pay isn't determined by hours worked or productivity, it's set by the market rate and minimum wage.

        The minimum wage is an hourly rate. Pay is most definitely defined by hours worked.

      • If employers could slash wages 20% they would do it immediately. Pay isn't determined by hours worked or productivity, it's set by the market rate and minimum wage.

        There's no need to slash wages at all. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this yet, but the breakeven point of paying time-and-a-half after 32 hours would come out to a 37.33 hour workweek. That's really just a longer lunch and/or a few extra breaks every day.

        I think they're mostly pushing this with the intention of keeping employers from pulling the trick where they keep your hours under 40 to weasel out of paying benefits.

  • so many people can't afford the loss of that 8 hours of pay. all this will do is make more people have to work multiple jobs and drive up costs for everything else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      They won't. They will work a few less hours and make up for it with overtime pay as employers desperately try and fail to find more part timers without offering more money.

      • Well, the reduction to 32 hours base would be certain. and the reluctance of employers to cough up for overtime would be likely. However, their inability to find part time workers is highly speculative, and the possibility the employer simply finds 32 hours is enough to get the work done is also there.

        Besides, you're not accounting for "two job situations." All the folks who can't live on 32 hours effectively trade jobs for the other 8.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          Many employers already routinely pay overtime rather than hire more workers now. What makes you think that will go away?

      • They won't. They will work a few less hours and make up for it with overtime pay as employers desperately try and fail to find more part timers without offering more money.

        ChatGPT has entered the chat.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          You should actually try ChatGPT before you draw that conclusion.

          It's amazing when it works, but when it fails, it fails hard. See the story a few days ago when Google took a fairly big financial hit over one of those failures.

  • need to also cap exempt workers OT some do 60+ as the min time that boss wants you to be there.

    • That's just because many jobs that should be classified as non-exempt were made exempt precisely so that employers could overwork their people and get away with it.

      It's on you to refuse such abuse.

    • need to also cap exempt workers OT some do 60

      I've had more than one employer who thought working 80 hours was normal, and if you put in 40 you were a slacker who needed to go.

  • need to an X2 OT level maybe at 50 hours as well.

  • My wife ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:35PM (#63360015)

    ... would like my boss to keep me for an additional 8 hours per week. Who's happiness is in question here anyway?

  • needed as automation takes over and cuts jobs longer term what is better
    A. one person working 40 hours +OT doing the work / supervising an automation system doing the work of what used to 3-4 people
    B. two persons working 20-32 hours some more limited +OT doing the work / supervising an automation system doing the work of what used to 3-4 people

    • needed as automation takes over and cuts jobs

      In the animated TV show The Jetsons, George was paid for a full day's work for pressing a single button at the start of his shift and then sat around doing nothing for the remainder of the day. In real life, businesses aren't going to pay for labor they no longer need, whether you shorten the definition of a full-time job or not.

  • Then why not make the work week 50 hours? Or 60?

    Let's not keep something the same because we've always done it this way or becuase we spent a long time making the bad decision.

    The truth is, our population would be a much happier society if we all had to work less. It seems to me like in America we've got this "I should be able to work less, but those other slackers shouldn't be able to work less." We dream of the Star Trek universe/economy, but no one wants to actually make it a reality.

    • Then why not make the work week 50 hours? Or 60?

      Why not never having to work at all?

      The 40 hour work week was arrived at not by Scrooge McDuck, as a way to destroy the proletariat, but as a way to have the workweek correspond with the hours of the day, and the days of the week.

      12 hour days were obviously too much for some people the six day workweek likewise was an issue. 40 hours - well some people are rendered stressed out- and incapable of doing 40 hours, so make it 32. But think about it - how about a 16 hour work week paying as much as a 40 ho

    • We dream of the Star Trek universe/economy, but no one wants to actually make it a reality.

      Even Star Trek didn't have a Star Trek economy. The ships were depicted as at least being partially constructed by human laborers, the concept of property ownership was still a thing (Joseph Sisko owned a Creole restaurant), and IIRC there were a few episodes where negotiations with other alien races involved bartering in gold pressed latinum.

      I think the concept of "we don't use money" ended up being retconned into "humanity's primary drive is no longer the pursuit of personal wealth, but money is still a

  • More happiness! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @06:49PM (#63360055)
    Eliminate the need to work at all. This will create a Utopia, because if 32 hours make people happy, 0 hours will make them the happiest.

    Change my mind

    • What will happen is that people will create new jobs, because they like to feel useful. So expect new types of services, activities, or products. Maybe people will start cleaning the streets or building houses for the poor, going to college, or becoming tutors. But no utopia cause any utopia is actually a dystopia.

      • What will happen is that people will create new jobs, because they like to feel useful. So expect new types of services, activities, or products. Maybe people will start cleaning the streets or building houses for the poor, going to college, or becoming tutors. But no utopia cause any utopia is actually a dystopia.

        I'm sure I'd keep quite busy. I have enough hobbies and other activities. But I'm pretty certain at least half of humanity will become indigent and surplus. That's the big thing. It would be cool if humans could just create stuff, and be helpful to others. But there is a lot of case history that we'll get restless and start killing each other for shits and giggles.

        Not trying to be gloomy, but I think human minds need some evolving before we can handle. Let's just hope I'm wrong.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nugoo ( 1794744 )
      If a 40 hour work week is more productive than a 32 hour one, then an 80 hour work week must be more productive still, and a 168 hour work week would be most productive of all. Change my mind.

  • - "shorten their week and hire more people"? - (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swell ( 195815 ) <jabberwock@poetic.com> on Friday March 10, 2023 @07:09PM (#63360123)

    I keep hearing that the 32 hour week is just as productive (Iceland)
    (https://www.forbes.com/sites/sheilacallaham/2019/05/24/company-strategy-32-hour-work-week-increases-employee-productivity-collaboration/)
    or more productive (Microsoft Japan)
    (https://xponent21.com/insights/productivity-and-working-32-hours-a-week/)
    than the 40 hour week.

    So why then would it be necessary to add workers?

    These were small studies relative to the entire United States, but they mustn't be ignored.

    • We have countries like the Netherlands which actively tried using a shorter work week to boost employment. The result had no impact on unemployment figures, not a study but a failed policy. Well... "failed" policy. The shorter work week stayed.

    • So why then would it be necessary to add workers?

      Companies that measure productivity in number of widgets produced probably won't have to. But service industries, which measure productivity in terms of the number of customers per day, will. A restaurant would have to add more staff to be open the same amount of time and serve the same number of customers. So would stores, hotels, gyms... Any place which sets their hours to according to when the customers come in rather than to according to the number of u

      • Stores used to have more staff, until they decided to start cutting costs. So maybe they will just exploit their employees even more, by trying to fill up every minute of those 32 hours with even more work, instead of hiring more people. Similar to what amazon has been said to do with their warehouse employees(can't confirm if that is real or not, so take it with a wheelbarrow full of salt).

    • How productive are Japanese and Icelandic workers vs. CONUS workers?

    • Surely it matters what the work you're doing is though? I run my own business, and I'm quite amazed at what I can still achieve around business admin/dealing with customers/production issues, when I'm in a zombie like state. But if I need to write software, than yeah, 32 hours in a week of really productive output would be a good week.

      If I try to do more, sure I produce more lines of code, but I definitely don't think I get to the goal as fast or cleanly as I would with a clear head. And when you have to ev

  • As a grocery retailer... (Score:3)

    by sarren1901 ( 5415506 ) on Friday March 10, 2023 @07:17PM (#63360147)

    I say, No thanks. My company isn't going to increase my wages by 20%, so forcing me to lose 8 hours a week is just going to cost me money that I can't afford to not make. Trust me, I've looked into it for myself and I just can't make it work.

    Also, we are already struggling to find enough employees as it is. About the only silver lining is the bill probably has an exception for people with a union contract and thankfully my grocery job is union, so I would get to keep working.

    I couldn't actually see my company happily letting me keep working 40 hours and paying me OT for the last 8. They would just cut me to 32 and probably try to push harder on us to get the work done.

    P.S. Heck, if I could pickup another 8 hour shift every other week, I would happily do so. More money in my pocket makes me happy.

  • Isn't minimum wage in the US set by hour? So this allows companies to pay "full time" workers less per year? Does that sound like a good thing?
  • We cannot fill the current job openings and he wants us to hire more? Where do they come from? China's population is shrinking. The US working population is not growing and as the Boomers retire will shrink. We are restricting legal immigration so where are the workers gonna come frome? Elon has the answer! He's building them in a Tesla factory. So much for the dignity of work.

    • We cannot fill the current job openings

      Sure you can. Just pay enough for people to live on. If your business cannot do that, then you have an unsustainable business plan and your business will fail eventually.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah

Close