California Weighs Shift To 32-Hour Work Week For Larger Companies (cbsnews.com) 193
Assembly member Cristina Garcia has cosponsored a bill to make the state's official workweek 32 hours for companies with 500 or more employees. CBS News reports: Any work done past that cutoff would come with a hefty raise: Employers would be required to pay time-and-a-half to workers whose hours run over 32 a week. And work stretching past 12 hours a day or into seven days a week would be paid at double the normal wage. Employers subject to the law, which would apply to 20% of California's workforce, also would be barred from reducing people's pay if they work less than their standard workweek, Garcia told CBS News. The bill would not apply to workers who are represented by a union and covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
The proposed law would cover about 2,600 companies in California, according to the Employment Development Department (PDF). The California Chamber of Commerce called it a "job killer," saying it would make hiring more expensive and lead to a drop in jobs in California. "Labor costs are often one of the highest costs a business faces," Ashley Hoffman, policy advocate with the Chamber, wrote to bill cosponsor Evan Low last week. "[B]usinesses often operate on thin profit margins and... the number of employees you have does not dictate financial success," she wrote.
The proposed law would cover about 2,600 companies in California, according to the Employment Development Department (PDF). The California Chamber of Commerce called it a "job killer," saying it would make hiring more expensive and lead to a drop in jobs in California. "Labor costs are often one of the highest costs a business faces," Ashley Hoffman, policy advocate with the Chamber, wrote to bill cosponsor Evan Low last week. "[B]usinesses often operate on thin profit margins and... the number of employees you have does not dictate financial success," she wrote.
Thank you notes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Thank you notes? (Score:2)
Per capita GDP of CA: >$80k
Per capita GDP of Idaho: $50k
What's really funny is the source I got that from treats both as outliers. There's no indication how far above $80k CA is, and none for how far below $50k Idaho is.
They're not even in the same class. Relatively speaking, Idaho is still a developing economy. Like Brazil or Mexico.
I think it'll be fine.
Thought exercise (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say you work at Amazon, in a warehouse that employs 3,000 workers, and you make $17/hr as a full-time, 40 hour a week worker, earning $680/week.
If passed this law would cut your hours to 32/week, and you'd be paid the same $680/week for those 32 hours, making each of your 32 hours worth $21.25/hr sounds great, right?
But wait, any chance your employer (Amazon) would simply hire an additional 600 workers, each now earning $21.25/HF for their now 32 hour work week and eat the loss? Of course not.
They will explore moving as many jobs as they can out of CA, which would likely mean turning every worker into a contractor, working for a subcontractor, not Amazon - there goes Amazon healthcare, Amazon tuition reimbursement, etc.
Oh, and if you unionize the warehouse, the facility will be exempt, so all the workers will be back at a 40 hour work week, earning $17/hr... Unions, yay!
Yet another ill-conceived, job-killing, anti-worker proposal from the CA state legislators.
Re:Thought exercise (Score:5, Insightful)
You are under the impression that California is becoming anti business. California is pro worker. If California were a country it's economy would the fifth largest on the planet. The fact that it's a massive capitalist success while being left leaning pisses off republicans to no end.
Re: (Score:3)
The success is due to freedom and location. Bloated government grows up around it as a parasite, then laughably pretends it is the cause.
Re: (Score:3)
The success is because the workers feel safe and like they are heard there. So good workers who are looking for somewhere to settle pick California. They get people from all over the world there,m pouring in to work - and that hasn't changed because of the government, on the contrary, it has increased (controlled for overall rates in the US).
So yes, the government is definitely the cause of the immense success of corporations in California. Good workers like having a good work environment, what a crazy conc
Re: Thought exercise (Score:2)
This is what red-state haters don't seem to understand. California is setup for winners. If you're a winner, moving here will preserve your individual rights in the workplace better than pretty much anywhere else in the U.S., increase your salary, boost your retirement fund, and make you even more successful.
Much of America has simply accepted poverty as a way of life. They keep trying to compete on cost. So, they compete with the third world where there are no worker rights or prosperity. They're like serf
Re: (Score:2)
California is so terrible yet Trump had to build a massive wall to keep people out.
Re: Thought exercise (Score:2)
Red states literally bought up the immigrants kidnapped by the Dutch and bred them in order to create an elite class who could live like European nobility.
But when California wants to allow Mexicans in so that Americans don't have to do stupid low-wage work, all of a sudden red states have a problem with immigration.
Re: Thought exercise (Score:2)
Not true. If CA were a country, it would put all the water producing states under its military "protection".
And it would also build desalination plants.
It's not rocket science.
Except for all the missiles stockpiled in CA. That IS rocket science.
Re: Thought exercise (Score:2)
No one actually believes you. Certainly no one in California.
It's sort of hilarious to see how when you really look at the "California Emigration" story, what you mostly find is the real nugget of truth is: "Joe Rogan moved to Texas and everything he does or says has an enormous impact on the media"
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe Amazon will just pay them 8 hours of overtime, since it may be the easiest and cheapest option to continue operating in Cali. Good luck finding 600 more workers.
Brilliant idea! (Score:2, Troll)
California is bleeding. It's a challenge to find an available U-Haul, every available one is being used to U-Haul U-Ass out of state. The Golden State lost congressional seats in the last census. It'll lose more in the next one.
This is a brilliant solution! Making it even harder to do business in the Golden State will surely encourage new business to flock in, and create more employment opportunities, and more job opportunities for the Golden State!
Re: Brilliant idea! (Score:2)
U Hauls are regional. Almost all those U Hauls are going to other California cities. The number of people leaving California hasn't really changed. The actual story is there's less immigration from other American states and more immigration from other countries. With no change in people leaving.
And the actual reason for this is probably because much of America has become economically closer to the third world. Non-Californian Americans have just been priced out, so immigration comes from first world countri
And the jobs are moved out of California (Score:3, Informative)
If the bottom line is not cost competitive the job moves to Texas or China. Or the big company will break into smaller companies to get around the law. Or the big company outsources jobs to get under the 500 limit. Or the company pays a lobbyist to get an exemption put in the law.
May 2, 2022 Rates for a 15' U-Haul Truck
$3,740 Los Angeles, CA to Austin, TX
$1,346 Austin, TX to Los Angeles, CA
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs requiring qualifications are no where near as mobile as you think. You can move unskilled manufacturing around but that's not exactly what this article is talking about is it.
Re:And the jobs are moved out of California (Score:5, Insightful)
They said the same thing when France adopted a standard 35 hour working week, and it didn't happen.
This is California, wages are already high. If exporting those jobs was desirable or practical it would have happened already.
Re: (Score:2)
But those are things that are happening all over western Europe, and the reduced hours actually boosted employment as employers wishing to maintain the same number of labour hours took on additional staff.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of Western Europe is 37.5 hours/week full time.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be possible for some companies to eliminate most of their major job functions and then rehire everyone through a contractor. As long as the contractors don't individually hire more than 499 people, problem solved.
Couple of big caveats (Score:3)
I was confused about who is covered by this bill. I think there are two really important caveats.
First, I think it's only covering hourly workers, not salaried, and only for companies with more than 500 people. I don't know how that works for franchised businesses: do you work for the parent company or the franchise?
Second, it doesn't cover union workers. They'll have to negotiate this deal one at a time. Makes you wonder why they didn't negotiate it already.
If I ran a company with 1,000 hourly people, I'd definitely go out of my way to ensure none of them was scheduled for more than 20-30 hours per week. California is making it way to expensive to schedule someone for more.
Re: (Score:2)
If they really want to make a difference then they need to remove the concept of part-time work. If you work, you work, period, full benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
In the salary case, the natural r
we need an X2 OT level (for both hour and salary)! (Score:2)
we need an X2 OT level (for both hour and salary)!
Popcorn time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this giving the poor a break?
Re: (Score:2)
We should be headed this way (Score:2)
Most white-collar people don't work for 40 hours a week, and we need to hire more people to work for less time not less people seeing their families for less time
Re: (Score:2)
"Most white-collar people don't work for 40 hours a week"
7:30 to 4:00 with a half hour for lunch five days a week does indeed work out to 40 hours a week.
And I was salary exempt, in R&D. Definitely white collar.
Re: (Score:3)
No, we've worked 50 to 60 hours a week, not 40. Salaried positions have always had that embedded notion that you work when it's required. Sometimes there's a slack week or day but that's it's less frequent than the over 40 weeks.
And companies will have two choices (Score:2)
Two Choices immediately come to mind. First, the company just reduces your wage proportionally if you're salaried and if you're hourly punching a clock you'll lose out too because O/T will be hell to get. Second, the company just leaves California. If you have over 500 employees you can afford to relocate out of the state.
Step right up, folks... (Score:2)
Step right up, folks. Do you want to earn more but work less? Just re-elect us, and it will be your future.
So, either they get paid the same for 32 as 40, roughly a 25% increase, or they have to get paid overtime to work the extra 8, at least a 10% increase. Either way, the consumer of anything is SCREWED.
Re: In the midst of a labor shortage? (Score:2)
I don't really think that matters. California is kind of in a "let's change for the sake of change" mentality right now, so they're willing to break many eggs to make omelettes. Take for example their newest social program:
https://www.latimes.com/califo... [latimes.com]
Though the author of that article misspelled "redistribution of wealth". Though that is actually a broader part of a current democratic party initiative:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
Re: In the midst of a labor shortage? (Score:5, Interesting)
That assumes two things (Score:4, Interesting)
And second it assumes that there are enough workers they can get away with that. At the moment because of the massive number of baby boomers retiring for the McJobs that pulled those kind of shenanigans there isn't.
Declining birth rates and declining immigration due to declining birth rates the world over and general stabilization of South America coupled with the fact that it's politically infeasible to allow Mass immigration means that likely isn't going to change.
As an added bonus McJobs have been relying on lifers instead of teenagers and college kids for so much that they're now vulnerable to unionization. This is why Starbucks is unionizing. Same with Amazon. Unions will force companies to pay higher wages and provide benefits and full-time hours. Even if the market conditions allow them to abuse employees.
There are some things that can throw a wrench and all this. The Republican Party is moving to seize power. The governor of Texas just shut down the ports by requiring truck inspections unnecessarily. He's doing that to drive up inflation and hurt the American people because he's counting on you to blame Joe Biden and the Democrats for it. His party will then use the gains they make in the midterms to further obstruct and damage the country and again the Republican party is counting on you to blame Joe Biden and give them more power. They're counting on the fact that you don't know that 96% of jobs created in the last 30 years were created under Democratic administrations.
I know people don't like it when we bring partisan politics in because we've all been conditioned to think that partisan politics is dirty. That was on purpose. Somebody spent time and money conditioning you to think that. Right about now is a good time to ask who did that and why?
Alternatively you can try and come up with an excuse why the governor of Texas has basically stopped the flow of goods from the border. If you've got one I'm all ears
Re: (Score:2)
There are some things that can throw a wrench and all this. The Republican Party is moving to seize power. The governor of Texas just shut down the ports by requiring truck inspections unnecessarily. He's doing that to drive up inflation and hurt the American people because he's counting on you to blame Joe Biden and the Democrats for it. His party will then use the gains they make in the midterms to further obstruct and damage the country and again the Republican party is counting on you to blame Joe Biden and give them more power. They're counting on the fact that you don't know that 96% of jobs created in the last 30 years were created under Democratic administrations.
Wow. That's some pretty serious level of brainwash. Where do you stock on tinfoil hats?
Re: (Score:3)
LOL at the idea that three hour wait times at the border drives up inflation.
Re: (Score:3)
At least when compared to the price hikes on gas caused by certain executive orders.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri... [whitehouse.gov]
I'm amazed they haven't pulled it off the White House site, as it completely undermines their whole narrative of the Putin/Abbot Price Hikes
How do you figure? How much active pumping of oil was coming from the affected regions? Oh, that's right. None.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of things we can blame a President on. But gas prices and inflation aren't on that list. Congress develops the budget, not the President. Congress has the power to legislate and regulate industry and finance. Congress explicitly has the authority under the commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce, not the governor of Texas. Woe to him if any of those shipments moving over Texas's border were intended to go outside of Texas.
Re: (Score:3)
*Cough* Bullshit *Cough*
https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri... [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Young people that have been brainwashed in to thinking that unions are the savior of mankind and every employee should belong to one.
Bullshit - it's the exact opposite. Union membership is at an all-time low [usafacts.org] and continues to drop. The incessant rhetoric against organized labor, the jackbooted corporate tactics to fight them, and the lack of enforcement of laws protecting speech in favor of unions in the workplace has had the expected result. What more do you want?
It has everything to do with the indoctrination we've replaced education with.
Ah yes, those evil pro-union indoctrination classes in elementary school are to blame. Though I'd agree that poor education is part of the problem - perhaps if more people w
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the idea is that if hourly workers get this it will put pressure on companies to offer it to salaried workers.
Often politics is the art of the possible, so maybe this is the only way she can get it passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know you picked three states that have higher murder rates than California?
Also, FYI the states with the top 5 murder rates are Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, and Alaska, which happen to all be open-carry and concealed-carry states.
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/press... [cdc.gov]
https://www.route-fifty.com/pu... [route-fifty.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know you picked three states that have higher murder rates than California?
Also, FYI the states with the top 5 murder rates are Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, and Alaska, which happen to all be open-carry and concealed-carry states.
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/press... [cdc.gov] https://www.route-fifty.com/pu... [route-fifty.com]
Except for someone not planning to get involved in ghetto warfare, that ranks on list of concerns somewhere between rates of lightning kills, and meteor strikes.
Re: In the midst of a labor shortage? (Score:2)
You mean like everywhere else?
Re: (Score:2)
I gave you a link to a debate I had with one. You tell me what his ideas were.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you actually refute the statement? All progressive labor policy is highly tilted to unions (and often written by unions). This bill being discussed exempts Unions. Only by having Union labor can an employer have workers work 40 hour work weeks. Seems to me a mighty big legislative hammer towards unionization.
The new EV tax credit in the failed Build Back Better bill only applied the US built portion to union shops and not any shop employing Americans. Progressives have been trying to kill Right to
Re: In the midst of a labor shortage? (Score:2)
Curiously enough this is actually an area where freedom of Europeans are better protected than Americans. The European Convention on Human Rights Article 11 Freedom of Assembly and Association protects our right also to not be a member of a union and thus union exclusive agreements between employers and employees
Re: (Score:2)
Right to Work laws in the United States serve the same purpose. Well in theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of Assembly and Association is covered in the First Amendment to the US constitution. Forced union membership to work violates this, but it doesn't seem like those making these laws care about that.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those immigrants work white collar jobs or assembly line work in larger companies? Add to that that the only target of the law is jobs with fixed pay, not hourly pay.
You're building and tearing down a straw man.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, moron, full time pay for 32 hours. You sound just like a capitalist from the twenties, why do you expect to get paid for a full week when you didn't work 12 or 16 hours a day?
"17 L.A. gangs have sent out crews (Score:2, Insightful)
As somebody who's *not* one of LA's wealthiest I'm not sure I've got a problem with this. I mean, except it more than likely being utter bollocks the cops cooked up so they could ask for more money.
Maybe if LA's wealthiest shared some of that wealth we wouldn't have modern day robin hoods.
As for Dems "robbing from the rich to give to the near rich"... why *do* all these poors have microwaves and refrigerators anyway?*
*it's because we pas
Re:"17 L.A. gangs have sent out crews (Score:4, Interesting)
to follow and rob city’s wealthiest".
As somebody who's *not* one of LA's wealthiest I'm not sure I've got a problem with this. I mean, except it more than likely being utter bollocks the cops cooked up so they could ask for more money
Possibly, but they seem to have a decent amount of surveillance video capturing it. Here's one where they hit a woman with a Dodge Challenger (not exactly poor if they have one of those, unless it's stolen of course) in broad daylight so they could take her watch.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
I'm not complaining, mind you. I'll bet that every single one of the victims in these cases voted for this new social program. I'm just saying, California is in the middle of change for change sake.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite telling that the only sites running these "stories" are the Daily Mail and the international equivalents of that braincell reduction media.
Re: (Score:3)
Meh, Daily Fail link. I'll consider your point if you can provide a link to a credible source.
You may as well have said "my mate down the pub told me".
Re: (Score:2)
The point in linking to that was the video. You're retarded if you think the source makes a difference when it's the exact same surveillance video.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't click on the link, because it's the daily fail and it's 50% lies. Something they publish might be true, but it might not. Point is, if it's the Fail, then I need to do the work to figure out if it's legit.
This is strictly speaking no better than you simply telling me something happened without providing a link. So, I treat it the same way, and ask for a link to a credible source that's less likely to be a complete waste of my time.
If you can't be bothered to find a credible source for whatever you'
Re: "17 L.A. gangs have sent out crews (Score:3)
If something is truthful, and you refuse to believe it anyways no matter what just because you don't like the person that said it, then that's entirely your own damn fault. Really no different than saying "I'll only believe it if it's in the bible."
Multiple sources have reported this exact incident, but that is the only one with the actual video. I don't know why that is, but I suspect it has to do with that source paying for exclusive rights to the video, which is something that news organizations often do
Re:"17 L.A. gangs have sent out crews (Score:4, Funny)
I once saw a homeless person with a cell phone. Like OMG, he could have saved up the $15/month he spends on a pay-as-you-go plan for 240 months and rented an apartment for a month. I remember the good old days where we would pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and fly around the air a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
you can get an Free LifeLine Phone when you are homeless
Re: (Score:3)
I remember the good old days where we would pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and fly around the air a bit.
Yeah so do I. The good ol' days where a) cellphones weren't available for free for certain disadvantaged people, and b) the good ol' days where you didn't need a cell number to do something as basic as go for a job interview.
But at least somethings don't change. We are still judgmental arseholes towards others, so yay us.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the good old days where we would pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and fly around the air a bit.
Yeah so do I. The good ol' days where a) cellphones weren't available for free for certain disadvantaged people, and b) the good ol' days where you didn't need a cell number to do something as basic as go for a job interview.
But at least somethings don't change. We are still judgmental arseholes towards others, so yay us.
If you think that the offer of "I'll rent you a room in a flat somewhere, and give you a job flipping burgers that can sustain it" will have a lot of takers among the homeless - well, think again.
Re: (Score:2)
The poors have microwaves and refrigerators because those are extremely cheap, especially when bought second hand, and because those save a LOT of money, which may not matter for someone as rich as you who can keep your foodstuffs on the counter and simply throw it away after a day, but which matters quite a bit for the poor, who need to try to save every penny and use their food until it's actually all eaten.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an opportunity for LA's wealthiest to hire mercenaries. Oprah gets to hire armed guards so it must be okay for all the other rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and there aren't any notable flaws in the reasoning. For example, removing the SALT cap is a tax cut for the rich, period. There is literally nobody else that would benefit from that. So why do progressives want it so bad?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and there aren't any notable flaws in the reasoning. For example, removing the SALT cap is a tax cut for the rich, period. There is literally nobody else that would benefit from that. So why do progressives want it so bad?
Before they changed it, it was a middle class tax cut. Deducting your mortgage interest + property taxes was one of the few big breaks the tax code gave to the middle class. If you own a home in any of the more expensive parts of the country, you're paying enough in SALT taxes to go over the limit. Tons of middle class people used those deductions.
But none of that matters now after the standard deductible got raised. Very few people can deduct enough to itemize nowadays. The SALT change got attention early
Re: (Score:2)
If you own a home in any of the more expensive parts of the country, you're paying enough in SALT taxes to go over the limit. Tons of middle class people used those deductions.
Not really. If you own a home in any of the more expensive parts of the country, either you have a lot of money, or you're simply living beyond your means. Like that chick that got fired from Yelp after she wrote an open letter to the CEO complaining that she doesn't get paid enough because she had something like a $3k/month rent. I made a lot more than she did at the time, my rent was $1,600 some odd, and my apartment was a hell of a lot nicer. She wanted to live THERE even though she couldn't afford it.
I
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that you have a sense of what things cost in different parts of the country. If you own a home in the northeast, there's a good chance you hit the SALT limit. If you own a home within commuting distance of any of the major cities, you almost certainly hit the SALT limit. This isn't just rich people or those poor at finances - this is tens of millions of people. It's the average family in the more densely populated portions of the country.
I don't really care to argue over classes, but I'm using
Re: (Score:2)
...to be honest the whole concept of economic "class" is bullshit if you ask me. It's basically a concept invented by Karl Marx to try to drive a wedge between people so he could get his glorious revolution which would put him at the top of a pretend democracy. Everybody has their own ideas about what income you have to have to fit in different "classes", and they'll shift the goalposts to fit whatever narrative they want to create.
"Class" in the Marxist sense has nothing to do with how much money you made. "Middle class" is mostly orthogonal to Marxist terminology. In Marxist terms, if you do not make your living exploiting someone else's labor or by rent seeking you were proletariat, a.k.a working class. You can be an engineer making over $200k a year and still be working class if you make your living selling your labor and don't own the product of your efforts. The only wedge Marx wanted to drive was between the 99% and the 1.
Th
Labor shortage is a myth (Score:3)
My bro just went to a motherfucking Denny's and got a veggie omlet and a water and it was $15 bucks before tip. They can afford to pay more, but they don't want to. So we get news stories about "labor shortage".
Re: (Score:3)
My bro just went to a motherfucking Denny's and got a veggie omlet and a water and it was $15 bucks before tip. They can afford to pay more, but they don't want to. So we get news stories about "labor shortage".
Either way they ARE paying more. There's a thing going on right now referred to as "the great resignation", and the industry impacted the most by it is hospitality and restaurants. Is that particular "motherfucking Denny's" impacted? Maybe, maybe not, but it's safe to say that most "motherfucking Denny's" are.
They're not really paying all that much more (Score:2)
When I was a kid there were tons of little restaurants that were privately owned and run. The nearest private restaurant to where I'm at is about 15 miles away. The rest of them have all been run out of business by the chains.
Re: (Score:3)
Restaurants work on very thin margins. Labor is one of their largest expenses. A couple percent raise in labor costs essentially erases that thin margin. Add to that covid induced shortages, fuel costs (shipping), and everything else being more expensive, and there's a very good reason why your bill at Denny's is so high. Every extra cent that something costs becomes a feedback loop for inflation.
Inflation was not an issue two years ago. Those mergers have been happening for years and years. Forced go
Re: (Score:3)
But what they are doing is making you think it's slightly rising wages are the cause of inflation and not the constant mega mergers that virtually eliminated competition.
Yeah mega mergers caused inflation for...Denny's...who clearly no longer has competition.
You're living in your own little world aren't you?
Re: (Score:3)
What is this labor shortage? Sounds like everyone in the shit paying jobs moved onto something better. Isn't that what you kept telling them? There is no shortage of labor, only a shortage of wages.
Re: (Score:2)
As should happen, employers who cannot find workers, raised wages to the market value required to get workers. That's the argument against minimum wage hikes. Wages will increase if no one wants a specific job. If too many qualified people want that job, wages go down or stagnate.
Re: (Score:2)
Wages will increase if no one wants a specific job. If too many qualified people want that job, wages go down or stagnate.
That's only true if not working is an option. If the choice is work for a poverty wage vs homelessness and starvation, is it really a choice?
Re: In the midst of a labor shortage? (Score:2)
It's the perfect time.
Under normal circumstances, the argument against something like this is that it will regressively impact low-wage workers by incentivizing employers who cut hours.
But during a labor shortage, you can't cut hours. You're forced to just pay more.
Since wage stickiness is actually the biggest problem in the labor market right now, this kills like 3 birds with one stone. You increase pay for low-wage workers, you start re-normalizing to a 32 hour week, and you give a kick to those stagnant
Re: Bad for the poor (Score:2)
So they are reducing the work week to 32 hours, but employers must pay previous 40 hour salary?
Why would any company in California ever have more than 499 employees?
Why would sny employer with more than 500 employees stay in California?
Notice how it exempts workers in unions or otherwise subject to collective bargaining? - Tgat exempts every teacher, first responder, or really any government worker in CA, that won't be a problem, will it?
Re: Bad for the poor (Score:2)
Employers ... would be barred from reducing people's pay if they work less than their standard workweek, Garcia told CBS News. The bill would not apply to workers who are represented by a union and covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
Not sure how this addresses part-time workers... what does "barred from reducing people's pay if they work less than their standard workweek" mean?
Please, implement this - I can't wait to see how fast employers leave the state!
(How fast could Tesla shutter their 'gigafactory' and move operations to Texas?)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see a problem with it. All people who work need to be paid a living wage, like yesterday.
Re: Bad for the poor (Score:3)
Freezing pay and cutting hours isn't a raise - it's the exact same pay, just fewer work hours. Your bi-weekly paycheck will look exactly the same, no difference.
This isn't giving workers a 'living wage' - this is giving them more free time.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't giving workers a 'living wage' - this is giving them more free time.
Is that a bad thing? I'd work zero hours a week if I was wealthy enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Freezing pay and cutting hours isn't a raise - it's the exact same pay, just fewer work hours. Your bi-weekly paycheck will look exactly the same, no difference.
This isn't giving workers a 'living wage' - this is giving them more free time.
It's a big raise if you have to pay for child care.
I don't think you're going to see hours cut (Score:2)
These restaurants are already running skeleton crews. Why would they give more hours than they absolutely have to to run their business no matter how low the pay was? That's not how business works.
Re: (Score:2)
It will seem like that for a little while, until market forces drive the pay down through inflation.
Re: Bad for the poor (Score:3, Insightful)
So the high school kid working at the local pharmacy deserves a 'living wage' to support his stay-at-home wife and two children and cover the rent check?
Define 'living wage'. Do workers with children get higher pay to support their children? Do single workers earn less? Wouldn't that be fair? Equitable?
Quick question (Score:3)
Which is it? Are these workers who we depend on to keep our economy functional or are they kids working a few hours for pocket money?
Also what the hell kind of pharmacy are you going to? I have never seen a high school kid at a pharmacy. Heck I haven't even
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that some jobs exist not to be careers or to fully support someone. Not every job should be a "living wage". There are starter jobs that give you experience which no one should work for more than a year. People need to aspire to become more valuable to employers and move on to better things.
It's good for teenagers to have jobs to gain experience and have some spending money (or to save money for college). Many college students need part time jobs that work around their school schedules. So
Re: (Score:2)
Because businesses that can no longer afford to hire a high school kid for a "living wage" will either fold or just replace high school kids with adults (or machines). Either way the high school kid can no longer get a job, because he commands too much pay for anyone to want to hire him and his lackluster job skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Living wage is usually defined as what one person needs to have their basic needs met in a reasonable fashion. Food, a home, energy, healthcare etc. Kids and non-working spouse are usually considered extras that are not part of the living wage.
The idea is to set a baseline where a person working five days a week isn't in poverty, and isn't a burden on the state (i.e. in receipt of benefits/welfare).
Keep in mind that if companies pay less than that it's corporate welfare. The taxpayer is subsidising their bu
Re: (Score:2)
If the company fires everyone and goes out of business, is that a preferable option?
Re: (Score:2)
You think that if the minimum wage goes up the boss will just self-destruct their own business, rather than making a bit less profit?
Re: (Score:2)
You think that if the minimum wage goes up the boss will just self-destruct their own business, rather than making a bit less profit?
Depends on the business, but yes. Some people think the earth is populated by "bosses" and "people" as if these are two different species. The fact is that many people switch back and forth between "boss" and "employee" multiple times in their life. The decision of whether to run a business or apply for a job often depends on revenue and expenses. My first boss worked extremely long hours and the business employed 30+ people. The boss was comfortable, but hardly rich. She never grew the business beyond one
Re: Bad for the poor (Score:2)
Does the work have value? Then pay the teenager the same as the adult if the same work gets done. If that means the teenager walks away with a decent wage that can fund their education or let them move out sooner or whatever, great.
Workers deserve to be paid. If the work needs getting done, don't try to pretend that it is less valuable based on who is doing it. Minimum wage as a living wage USED to work just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly off-topic, but in the mid-naughties, I worked for a university that was receiving a lot of bad PR and pressure from student and union groups to pay all their employees a living wage. Their answer was to redefine "full time" from 40 hours per week to 37.5. Magically, everyone suddenly received a 6.67% hourly rate pay raise.
Re: Bad for the poor (Score:2)
But I thought we had a labor shortage. Which is it? If you have a labor shortage, you can't cut hours.