|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Bass 
Group: Members
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 07 2013, 7:51 pm |
|
   |
In an earlier thread, replacing the 40 hour workweek with a 30 hour workweek as a way to open up more jobs was discussed. It was pointed out that there are presently more workers than there are jobs. But making 30 hours the standard workweek, and mandating overtime after 30 hours, would require employers to employ more people - thus reducing unemployment.
It appears that employers are ahead of the "think tanks" and are, in increasing numbers, moving ahead with instituting shorter workweeks. The day when a 30 hour work week is legislated - and 30 hours, not 40 hours becomes "full-time" is no longer a strange concept.
From Growth of Part-time Work:
Nationwide, the number of involuntary part-time workers in professional and business services, which includes white-collar occupations such as accountants and lawyers, nearly doubled to 711,000 last year from 367,000 in 2007.
Once the economy improves, and wage rates increase, the institution of the 30 hour workweek is likely to continue to grow. The only objection that workers have is the reduced take home pay. But once it becomes possible to live well on the shortened workweek, employees are likely to balk at the 40 hour workweek. Legislation requiring overtime after 30 hours is likely once it becomes apparent that employers prefer the 30 hour workweek too.
So everybody wins. Employees have more time to enjoy their kids and to develop hobbies like hiking. Unemployment rates are greatly reduced. And more employed people paying taxes, and not getting welfare, means more government revenue.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 07 2013, 9:04 pm |
|
 |
This is another step in the reduction of the middle class, lower middle class for sure. 30 odd years of Reaganomics!
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4795
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 07 2013, 11:27 pm |
|
|
I wish. I work 12 hour shifts. Usually 4 on, 4 off, 3 on, 3 off for 84 hours in a 2 week pay period. Sometimes I work 5 12s/week.
Since I doubt OT will come into play after 30 hours, the company could really make out. No more overtime and benefits could be dumped for all employees since less than 32 hours is considered part-time and benefits are not required for PT employees.
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Raznation
Why surf when you can make waves!
Group: Members
Posts: 23541
Joined: Sep. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 7:02 am |
|
|
Id rather work 9/80s.
--------------
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 8:39 am |
|
|
Standard of living and the middle class was booming until Reaganomics and deregulation of business.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 9:04 am |
|
|
Retired beats that! But three on four off is pretty cool. Two 16's e-yah!
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
cgaphiker
Hen Wallow Falls
Group: Members
Posts: 11005
Joined: Apr. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 9:30 am |
|
|
(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:24 am)
QUOTE
(Montecresto @ Feb. 08 2013, 7:04 am)
QUOTE Retired beats that! But three on four off is pretty cool. Two 16's e-yah! The schedule we have enables the company to run only 4 different shifts to cover a week and with a lot of temp employees*, company benefit costs go way down. *We hire through a temp agency. They have to work 500 hours that way before being offered a position. 2 advantages: one is no company benefits during that period (TA covers them), 2 it's much easier to drop someone if they don't fit in. My schedule sounds good with 3 & 4 days off but I get really beat by the 4th 12 and it takes ˝ day to recover. 5 12s takes a whole day. Part of it is adding a RT of another 1˝ hour drive so total for a workday is around 14 hours (add in ˝ hour lunch). 10 hours to eat, sleep, clean-up and feed and walk the dog means sleep usually gets shorted.
Not to mention productivity starts dropping after 8 hours. I'm getting ready to go the same shift.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4795
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 9:37 am |
|
|
Yeah, I did forget that part.
I made a minor mistake once (nothing serious, 2 minute fix) at about 11˝ hours in on day 4. When I said I was really exhausted, my boss went off on me saying I had to get more rest. Right. As if he could order me to sleep more and better.
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
EastieTrekker
Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 9:48 am |
|
|
I don't think it's going to happen. The central basis of your claim is that a lot of people are unemployed, and a lot less would be with 30 hour weeks. However, this ignores the fact that unemployment is cyclical in nature, and that we are currently (and simply) on the bottom end of an upward swing from the most recent downturn in the cycle (and a severe downturn at that). We're not simply in a permanent 7.9% unemployment rut.
No need to sound the alarm yet, on how to get all these unemployed back to work. We may not be recovering fast enough for some, but the economy is on the right trajectory. We will return to full employment. A fundamental change, like the one being proposed, would only add costs and complications, confounding our already immobile politicians.
--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8753
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 9:50 am |
|
|
(cgaphiker @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:30 am)
QUOTE
(Montanalonewolf @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:24 am)
QUOTE
(Montecresto @ Feb. 08 2013, 7:04 am)
QUOTE Retired beats that! But three on four off is pretty cool. Two 16's e-yah! The schedule we have enables the company to run only 4 different shifts to cover a week and with a lot of temp employees*, company benefit costs go way down. *We hire through a temp agency. They have to work 500 hours that way before being offered a position. 2 advantages: one is no company benefits during that period (TA covers them), 2 it's much easier to drop someone if they don't fit in. My schedule sounds good with 3 & 4 days off but I get really beat by the 4th 12 and it takes ˝ day to recover. 5 12s takes a whole day. Part of it is adding a RT of another 1˝ hour drive so total for a workday is around 14 hours (add in ˝ hour lunch). 10 hours to eat, sleep, clean-up and feed and walk the dog means sleep usually gets shorted. Not to mention productivity starts dropping after 8 hours. I'm getting ready to go the same shift.
Obviously, it depends on the job. The work schedule I stated was for a gym. I'd work from open to close 2 days. I'd be doing memberships, marketing, sales, personal training, inventory, accounting, scheduling... several different tasks that made the day fly by. I can't imagine doing one task for 16 hours.
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
EastieTrekker
Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 10:33 am |
|
|
(DonTom @ Feb. 08 2013, 10:27 am)
QUOTE
(Bass @ Feb. 08 2013, 4:43 am)
QUOTE But employers are already rushing to institute the 30 hour workweek as the OP article points out. These days, what you will find is many people doing 60 hour work weeks. IOW, if we went to 30 hours, many will get two jobs. It just won't work as well as some might expect. -Don-
+1
and it's been explained before in his other posts on the same topic, that this happens almost every economic downturn.
One only needs a cursory review of this country's economic history to see that almost every single economic downturn that temporary and part-time employment rise when exiting a downturn because it's the most cost effective way to ramp up production. As the economy improves over time, so too will the opportunities for more full-time positions.
Any economist worth his salt will tell you an increase in temp employment is a leading indicator of an economy on its way to recovery.
This is nothing more than alarmist conjecture.
*And FWIW - I haven't had less than a 50/hr work week for most of my career, including my current job.
--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
buzzards
Group: Members
Posts: 1744
Joined: Apr. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 11:03 am |
|
|
You do realize that many of these 28 to 30 hour workweeks are as a result of companies not wanting to offer health insurance, which is shortly to become mandatory for all full time employees?
And my personal, anecdotal observation is that hourly paid workweeks are shrinking, while salaried workweeks are getting longer.
When I started in Retail Management back in the 80's, you worked long hours at Back-to-School and Christmas. I am out of that industry, but my friends who are still in it usually work 60-75 hour weeks all year long, while only hiring part time sales clerks. I see the same for management in other industries.
--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5301
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 2:01 pm |
|
|
Growing up in the 1960's the view was that technological advances would significantly raise productivity and provide average Americans with more time to do things other than a 40 hour grind 50 weeks a year.
There have been significant technological advances and productivity gains, but this has not translated into an equivalent standard of living with fewer hours worked.
I've been in warehouse distribution for 20 years, the last 9 as a salaried manager. The bottom line for business decisions is to line the pockets of the major shareholders with quarterly profits. This means squeezing labor & management at every level, both in expected output and compensation. 2012 sales were less than expected. This was made up by eliminating bonuses and several positions that were to be filled. Our management staff is stretched thin; if one of us gets hit by the proverbial bus it will put operations at risk. We're in the process of moving one of our DC's and I've been averaging 60+ hours since November, working every Saturday and occasionally on Sunday.
The private equity firm that bought us a few years ago is doing more than just fine. The CEO is a billionaire with a palace in The Hamptons and 4 more around the country.
Of course, the solution to government budget deficits is, among other things, to raise the retirement age and curtail medicare benefits for after I retire (when I'll be too old to take advatage of my all my "free" time to go backpacking).
Now tell me who is the maker and who is the taker.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
buzzards
Group: Members
Posts: 1744
Joined: Apr. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 3:11 pm |
|
|
Drift Woody, to a certain extent, you and I are in agreement-at least on the problem. We probably disagree on the solution. I would submit that the solution is societal, and will only happen if each and every person will look in the mirror and change their own ways.
Your CEO needs to realize that he actually needs customers with disposable incomes, and that a high-morale workforce provides a competitive advantage over one stretched to the breaking point.
Meanwhile, those at the lower end somehow need to rediscover the dignity of work-even low paying, dirty, work. And maybe that means that eligibility for government assistance needs to the tightened considerably. It is a national shame that we have added more to the disability rolls than to the employment rolls the last few years.
And at the risk of getting preachy, a lot of people need to learn to keep their zippers zipped until they can provide a home for their children. See my post on the other thread for the societal implications of boinking anyone at anytime with no expectation of consequences.
Will it happen. Maybe/probably not. But it can happen, I just don't see how government makes it happen. People can only make it happen, if they will.
--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Altarboy
Group: Members
Posts: 246
Joined: Jan. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 5:29 pm |
|
|
I'm working 45 to 60. A change would be nice but I do like the overtime.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5301
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 08 2013, 9:12 pm |
|
|
(buzzards @ Feb. 08 2013, 2:11 pm)
QUOTE Drift Woody, to a certain extent, you and I are in agreement-at least on the problem. We probably disagree on the solution. I would submit that the solution is societal, and will only happen if each and every person will look in the mirror and change their own ways.
Your CEO needs to realize that he actually needs customers with disposable incomes, and that a high-morale workforce provides a competitive advantage over one stretched to the breaking point.
Meanwhile, those at the lower end somehow need to rediscover the dignity of work-even low paying, dirty, work. And maybe that means that eligibility for government assistance needs to the tightened considerably. It is a national shame that we have added more to the disability rolls than to the employment rolls the last few years.
And at the risk of getting preachy, a lot of people need to learn to keep their zippers zipped until they can provide a home for their children. See my post on the other thread for the societal implications of boinking anyone at anytime with no expectation of consequences.
Will it happen. Maybe/probably not. But it can happen, I just don't see how government makes it happen. People can only make it happen, if they will.
If people between the ages of education and retirement are capable of working (not disabled) they should work before receiving government assistance. Of course, you know that food stamps are issued to millions who work yet are compensated below the poverty line.
I also agree that pants should be zipped when parenting skills and financial responsibility are absent.
You and I likey differ in relying on a solution consisting of each and every person -- including the multibillionaire -- looking at themselves squarely in the mirror and doing the right thing. That won't happen until each and every child has an education commensurate with our erstwhile perception that America is the greatest nation on earth.
Human nature is what it is. Wealth seeks greater wealth, and hires razor sharp subordinates to squeeze every penny towards the bottom line. Sloth and ignorance do not become a silk purse more readily than a sow's ear.
Though human nature cannot be changed except perhaps through evolutionary progress, merely trying to cope as individuals within a flawed political/economic system will change nothing on the macro level. Ours is not the only free market democracy on the planet. All have their problems, but ours is not necessarily the best. Western Europeans and even the Japanese work fewer hours than full time US employees, and I daresay their standard of living is not inferior.
A broader context is at "work" here. Standard of living and quality of life are related, but not the same thing. What are our core values -- both as individuals and as a society -- and how does that relate to the great experiment in self gonvernment begun at our nation's founding?
Human nature won't change, at least in the short term. Any viable economic system, at the foundational level, must be driven by the prospect of personal gain and rewards for hard work and success. Marx was wrong, but so was Rand. Collectively we are stronger, but we need to be a lot smarter. How to get there is the question.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
cgaphiker
Hen Wallow Falls
Group: Members
Posts: 11005
Joined: Apr. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 09 2013, 12:17 am |
|
|
I don't know where you get this crap Bass. Higher productivity doesn't come from hiring more employees. And saleried employees don't work more hours than hourly employees. At least where I work. They might occassionally when there is some kind of emergency, work as many, but not more. I've had 3 days off this year and one of them was New Years Day. The other two were unexpected. I worked 64.5 last week. I'll work at least 56 this week. That's 7 8 hour shifts. Monday thru Sunday.
I really wish you would quit posting tripe such as this thread. 30 hour work weeks my ***.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Bass
Group: Members
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 09 2013, 7:15 am |
|
|
cgaphiker
QUOTE Higher productivity doesn't come from hiring more employees.
That's an interesting thought. It seems reasonable that employees that only work 30 hours per week would be "more rested" than employees who work 40 hours per week when they show up for the job. So they MIGHT be more productive.
It also seems reasonable that employees who only work 30 hours per week would have more time to exercise, cook healthy meals, become involved in their community and church, do volunteer work, etc. So, it is reasonable to expect that healthier, more balanced employees and an improved community would result from the shorter workweek. Healthier, less stressed, employees MIGHT be more productive too.
But I am sure that some of the 30 hour workweek workers would get another job, just as some of the current 40 hour workweek workers do. That would mean a 60 hour workweek - still less than the 80 hour workweek of a current two job holder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
