Some States Consider Legislation Making 4-Day Workweeks More Common (cbsnews.com) 78
A CBS News review found that at least half a dozen states, to varying degrees, are considering legislation to make four-day workweeks more common. From the report: Among those states is Maryland, where lawmakers recently introduced a bill proposing a pilot program "for the purpose of promoting, incentivizing, and supporting the experimentation and study of the use of a 4-day workweek by private and public employers." It would allow some employers that participate to claim a tax credit. Del. Vaughn Stewart, who represents Maryland's 19th district and is one of the bill's sponsors, said if workers can get more rest, they will be able to function better. "We're expecting that workers can be at least as productive in a 32-hour week as they are in a 40-hour week," he said.
John Byrne, CEO of the Baltimore software company Tricerat, said he saw the productivity of his 37 employees and the company's profits increase after making the switch to a 32-hour workweek. "We've asked the employees to ruthlessly look at their work, get rid of extraneous meetings, extraneous phone calls, paperwork, things of this nature, and reduce down the amount of wasted work," Byrne said. Byrne said his company is now drawing younger employees. [...] But advocates like Boston College professor Juliet Schor said the idea might require prodding from the government. "Historically, time reduction has always involved government," Schor said.
New legislation in New York, California and in the U.S. Congress would require companies that work employees more than 32 hours a week to pay overtime. Similar proposals have failed in the past and some critics have argued that a four-day workweek is not suited for all employers. Even supporters of the concept acknowledge it's not for everyone. "We don't think this is something that every single industry and every single business can do, but that's what we want to study," Stewart said.
John Byrne, CEO of the Baltimore software company Tricerat, said he saw the productivity of his 37 employees and the company's profits increase after making the switch to a 32-hour workweek. "We've asked the employees to ruthlessly look at their work, get rid of extraneous meetings, extraneous phone calls, paperwork, things of this nature, and reduce down the amount of wasted work," Byrne said. Byrne said his company is now drawing younger employees. [...] But advocates like Boston College professor Juliet Schor said the idea might require prodding from the government. "Historically, time reduction has always involved government," Schor said.
New legislation in New York, California and in the U.S. Congress would require companies that work employees more than 32 hours a week to pay overtime. Similar proposals have failed in the past and some critics have argued that a four-day workweek is not suited for all employers. Even supporters of the concept acknowledge it's not for everyone. "We don't think this is something that every single industry and every single business can do, but that's what we want to study," Stewart said.
Re: (Score:2)
"Are the states making the payroll or just advocating for this change based on politics? Answer is obvious to me but, hey, I'm listening as a business owner."
You have to hire 20% more people to get the same REAL work done, unless it's some service industry where they'd just bill the client the same amount but stay home on Fridays.
"real work" [Re:How do they do that?] (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to hire 20% more people to get the same REAL work done,
Depends on how you define "real work".
Unless it's some service industry where they'd just bill the client the same amount but stay home on Fridays.
Exactly the opposite. In a service industry, hours spent behind the cash register is real work. If they're behind the cash register 8 hours more, that's 8 hours more real work. In work requiring brainpower, however, people burn out after some number of hours. You can keep them in the office longer, but their productivity gets progressively less, and you only get so much real work done.
Re: (Score:2)
In work requiring brainpower, however, people burn out after some number of hours. You can keep them in the office longer, but their productivity gets progressively less, and you only get so much real work done.
Also: Working in focused chunks reduces the amount of time spend "reloading cache memory" between interruptions and also lets them get deeper into a probleme. Shorter work weeks give workers more power to pressure management and other workers to cut back on interrupting them.
Some fewer-day schemes
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, and Nope.
I've been doing "4 day work weeks" for the last 20 years.
Basically in a job that is paid/billed hourly, there is actually a cost savings, because you're not having staff come in when they are tired, and most hourly jobs are about screwing the employee's personal time by paying overtime instead of hiring more staff.
Where as a salary'd job would require entirely re-negotiating the employment contract to eliminate 5-8 hours of time and the corresponding salary. So most employees are going to bal
Re: (Score:2)
You should read more studies. Work done does not scale linearly with hours worked. 40 hours is a little past the point of diminishing returns.
That last 8 hours of each person's workweek it their least productive.
Re: (Score:3)
These are pilot programs only, they're not mandating this.
If it were mandated, then I'd have to work 4 days instead of my normal 3...
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, you're not. It's right there in the summary.
also need to add an X2 OT level at say 60-70+ (Score:2)
also need to add an X2 OT level at say 60-70+
Re:also need to add an X2 OT level at say 60-70+ (Score:5, Informative)
also need to add an X2 OT level at say 60-70+
Most states already have that.
In some states, OT is based on daily rather than weekly hours. In California, employees get x1.5 after 8 hours in a day and x2 for over 12 hours.
The best way to abuse employees is to move them to salaries and/or give them a job title that includes "manager" so they are exempt from overtime rules.
Re: (Score:3)
A title doesn't change anything in California. We had a person covered by the professional exemption that the labor board still said we owed overtime to since we worked a 4/9/4 schedule. Complete BS. (Engineering grads without an EIT were considered non-exempt, with EIT were exempt and eligible for straight-time OT, and PEs were considered exempt and above a certain salary threshold (around $90k) no longer eligible for straight-time OT.)
Re: (Score:2)
The best way to abuse employees is to move them to salaries and/or give them a job title that includes "manager" so they are exempt from overtime rules.
Which could be easily fixed by requiring a minimum salary to qualify for overtime rules due to executive duties.
Where I work you need to have at least a salary of about 350k per year to be exempt for that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Most states already have that.
In some states, OT is based on daily rather than weekly hours. In California, employees get x1.5 after 8 hours in a day and x2 for over 12 hours.
The best way to abuse employees is to move them to salaries and/or give them a job title that includes "manager" so they are exempt from overtime rules.
We're mostly geeks and nerds, so you should realize that anything along the lines of computer programmer are also exempt - even if paid hourly
Unworkable for hourly workers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably they have done the math and figured out that some businesses they want to affect would benefit sufficiently from the tax credit that they might give it a go. Or it might be targeted at one particular industry, or even a specific business.
Re:Unworkable for hourly workers (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably they have done the math and figured out that some businesses they want to affect would benefit sufficiently from the tax credit that they might give it a go. Or it might be targeted at one particular industry, or even a specific business.
The real problem in my mind is that if you have to pay overtime above 32 hours, and have to pay health insurance for workers who work more than 30 hours, there's a strong perverse incentive to employ workers for two fewer hours per week and stop paying for their health insurance.
We need to start with laws that guarantee part-time workers proportional benefits across the board, whether those workers are hourly or salaried. Otherwise, laws like this are probably just going to expand the wage slave class without actually benefitting anyone.
And once you have those sorts of laws in place, there's no longer any meaningful advantage to requiring workers to work 40 hours per week other than management overhead, so the companies will no longer need large tax breaks to incentivize them to let employees work fewer hours if they choose.
Re:Unworkable for hourly workers (Score:4, Interesting)
The system you're currently lumbered with is the worse possible one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is that while the majority of Americans want single-payer health care, the only real voters are corporations. They write the legislation, they hand it to their bought and paid for congresscreeps for passage, and they continue to contribute to their campaigns to keep them in power. The Republicans began to attack education under Reagan explicitly to avoid the creation of an "educated proletariat" (google those two words alone and see what comes up!) and leaned hard into gerrymandering, and the re
Re: (Score:2)
Obama had that for two years but all we got was a watered down health insurance plan. Maybe there is some kind of corporate conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Between Ted Kennedy dying and the Franken-Coleman senate race Obama had a grand total of 60 days of "totally ruling the country". There were also several Blue Dog Democrats throwing a wrench into things, much like Manchin and Sinema do today.
I've seen it reported somewhere that while Obama would have wanted single payer, he was more concerned about getting coverage for everyone, and the ACA was that plan.
Re: (Score:3)
stop paying for their health insurance.
Any company doing that would see current employees walking out the door and be unable to attract new workers.
Labor is a market, and markets don't work by one side dictating terms and the other side passively accepting them.
Re: (Score:2)
stop paying for their health insurance.
Any company doing that would see current employees walking out the door and be unable to attract new workers.
Labor is a market, and markets don't work by one side dictating terms and the other side passively accepting them.
Realistically, if that feedback mechanism actually worked, we wouldn't have the gig economy.
Sure, if employers suddenly said, "We're cutting all your hours by 25%, and your health insurance is going away," some employees would probably leave. But a lot of them wouldn't, because they can't afford to be jobless, and a lot of other people would be hired under the new scheme who would just know that they were part-time without health insurance, and most of them wouldn't make the connection that their employer
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem in my mind is that if you have to pay overtime above 32 hours, and have to pay health insurance for workers who work more than 30 hours, there's a strong perverse incentive to employ workers for two fewer hours per week and stop paying for their health insurance.
Health care being tied to your job is terrible for a lot of reasons. There's a reason most countries don't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem in my mind is that if you have to pay overtime above 32 hours, and have to pay health insurance for workers who work more than 30 hours, there's a strong perverse incentive to employ workers for two fewer hours per week and stop paying for their health insurance.
Health care being tied to your job is terrible for a lot of reasons. There's a reason most countries don't do it.
It absolutely is terrible. But for better or worse, the conservative party in this country won't let us fix that problem. So instead, let's tackle the problem that we can solve, by tweaking the affordable care act to require prorated health insurance payments for workers under 30 hours, with the option for the worker to either:
Re: (Score:3)
Its counter intuitive but theres a growing pile of research finding that reducing hours increases productivity and that 4 days seems to be the optimal solution for "how much effective work can you get out of one person in a week".
Some companies do this already and have had a lot of success with it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
When they were first talking about a 4 day work week, I assumed they were talking about 4X10. A 4X8 work week isn't likely to catch on with employers, at least in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/w... [pbs.org]
"...an overwhelming majority of the 61 companies that participated from June to December will keep going with the shorter hours..."
Re: (Score:2)
61 self selected companies doesn't allow for much isolation of confounding factors, I'm getting the impression that at least some were very marginal economically and sounding quite toxic.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're purely a button pusher, you can be replaced by a MUCH more effective button pusher.
If you're actually working, then yes, it's been shown that decreasing hours can make you more productive. Fewer mistakes, less goofing off.
Eight hour shifts do have the advantage of dividing the day into three, but shorter shifts with maintenance time or eight hour days with four day weeks work just as well as eight hour days with five day weeks.
Re:Unworkable for hourly workers (Score:5, Insightful)
Increases productivity where the nature of the job allows for it.
Dropping a software developer, where the productivity is often based on the individuals ability over the working week, down to 4 days might indeed have that outcome.
Dropping a fast food worker, where the productivity is often based on external things like rush hour, grill capacity etc, down to 4 days probably wont have the same effect.
What this will do for minimum wage low skilled jobs is free the worker up to get more hours at a second job - no, I am not saying that that is a good thing that should be encouraged (although it means more income for the worker overall, it also means the point of the hours reduction is missed entirely), Im saying that that is going to be the outcome should this be applied across the board. And if its not applied across the board, then we run into class issues.
Im sure this has positive outcomes in high wage jobs, where the fifth day is now probably a day of leisure, but not so much for lower paid workers IMHO.
Re:Unworkable for hourly workers (Score:4, Insightful)
And if its not applied across the board, then we run into class issues.
Thought - is this all that different to now where you have lower paid jobs which include evening and weekend work, vs jobs which are 9-5?
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely food for thought.
Yes it is different because right now the scope of those jobs is dictated by the relationship between the employer and employee - its not mandated by the government. Which this would be.
Imagine if there was a different minimum wage for people in 9-5 jobs (and here I assume you mean salaried) and people in hourly jobs - because thats effectively what would be happening if this wasnt applied across the board.
BTW Im not an American, and since I left retail (ooooh, 25 years ago now
Re: (Score:2)
Of course even the mythical 9-5 job very rarely exists. Its really 9-6, with an unpaid hour 'lunch break' that many tech workers work at their desk while eating.
35 working hours per week with a paid lunch break vs 45 hours with the unpaid 'break'. Its a not-so-sneaky way of getting 10 hours more work from employees while talking about the 8 hour workday (which is really 9 hours when accounting for that break). Add in travel time to an office job and your workday is actually closer to 11 hours on avera
Re: (Score:2)
Im sure this has positive outcomes in high wage jobs, where the fifth day is now probably a day of leisure, but not so much for lower paid workers IMHO.
Flag as Inappropriate
That's the whole reason why such thing is considered for California and not, say, Bangladesh (economy based on x widgets per hour). The wealth of California as compared to "competing" economies (other US states and foreign countries), comes form the high-wages workers it manages to attract and keep. These workers might feel more attracted if the work week is publicized as shorter than elsewhere. I mean, I live and work in Europe, a major deterrent for people here when considering moving to US is the reputat
Re: (Score:2)
I hear what you are saying, but at the same time California has a massive service-based economy as well - and those are the lower paid workers who simply wont get the same benefit from this, because their "extra day off" will just become overtime or more hours at a second job.
Once again its the inequality in the job market which causes this - and I agree with you that California and other states are doing this to make their higher income jobs look more appealing, but at the same time its going to cause diss
Re: (Score:2)
lower paid workers who simply wont get the same benefit from this, because their "extra day off" will just become overtime or more hours at a second job.
From what I understand, this results in a net increase of salary of low paid workers, for same hours worked. The advantage for high pay people is more leisure time, the advantage for low pay people is more money. I see it as reducing the economical inequality.
You could argue it would increases happiness inequality (beyond money), but data shows https://ourworldindata.org/hap... [ourworldindata.org] that happiness inequality reduces when salaries increase, even when economical inequality increases.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said in my post, its going to net like an extra $100 a week for a low paid worker.
That might round some corners for someone, but its not life changing by any means.
The inequality in the benefit here is what Im raising as an issue - for some, it means they get to pay an extra bill that week, for others it means an entire day off to do what they want. Theres no reduction in economical inequality here, I see it as increasing it.
Thats what we need to fix in our society.
Re: (Score:1)
You're trying to promote an idea about "economical equality"?
You want everyone paid the same, no matter their educational backgrounds or mental capability?
So, a top rocket scientist should be paid the same as a burger flipper?
Am I missing some
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that everyone should be paid the same. The problem is that the spread between the lowest and highest paid has gone from about 50x to 500x (actually about 450x last time I checked). Are some people really worth that much? And what happens to a society with such a spread in earnings?
Back when the spread was closer to 50x, the average person didn't too bad, buy a house, a car and raise a family if they were careful with their money. Now, there's a hell of a lot of people working like hell, and not bei
Re: (Score:2)
I hear what you are saying, but at the same time California has a massive service-based economy as well - and those are the lower paid workers who simply wont get the same benefit from this
Every state does. I was watching something on TV recently and they said most of America's workers are knowledge workers, but that's pure bullshit. Most of America's workers are in service industries [pewresearch.org]. Only a percentage of them know jack shit, and the rest are working from a formula or script. Unfortunately, to many people this translates into "doesn't deserve to exist" despite those same people being willing to pay for services they provide...
Re: (Score:2)
Im sure this has positive outcomes in high wage jobs, where the fifth day is now probably a day of leisure, but not so much for lower paid workers IMHO.
It's a win for most office jobs. Especially the ones that are salaried where management likes to push people to stay in the office longer because they can get away with it.
Efforts to raise minimum wage help people on the other end of the spectrum.
Fighting progress with "We can't improve conditions for group A because it doesn't also help group B" just results in nothing ever getting better. Fight for the wins you can get, and it'll help put pressure on to improve other areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Dropping a fast food worker, where the productivity is often based on external things like rush hour, grill capacity etc, down to 4 days probably wont have the same effect.
It will have a similar effect, if not the same. The worker will most likely demonstrate improved productivity. But because of the nature of the job, it still won't make sense to pay them the same for 4 days as for 5. There are lulls and rushes, and sometimes a worker will be underutilized. Since the food is all half prepared outside of the "restaurant" (e.g. Mickey Deeznuts employees aren't chopping fries, just slacking them) there is no likelihood of keeping all workers busy at all times. Equally, nobody s
Re: (Score:2)
"Its counter intuitive but theres a growing pile of research finding that reducing hours increases productivity and that 4 days seems to be the optimal solution for "how much effective work can you get out of one person in a week"."
Hiring 5 people to work one day per week would be top for the employer, you can act out Glengarry Glen Ross and fire the worst performer every week/month.
The terror rule would be absolute.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary also includes business process improvement which will allow the employees to be more efficient.
There are plenty of Fridays where we just see the office just shutdown mentally. There is more chatter, longer lunches, projects that may take a hour to do are put on hold for Monday. In many cases having an extra off, expecting to do the same amount of work for the same pay would be a bad deal, unless it is accompanied by fixing process.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...you can't compete against companies in other states who don't have that rule.
Sure you can. There's a big difference between "Keep your chair from flying up and hitting the ceiling" and "you can go home when this task is done."
Re: (Score:2)
I also think it wil promote automation, which has been typically good for the economy, though bad for workers who refused to become skilled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is such a weird attitude. As if the units you're paid in matter.
The (US) template for reducing working hours is Henry Ford. Those were hourly, blue collar, etc. and blah blah, employees.
The point is that not only can you compete by reducing working hours, you increase overall productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
This is DOA unless codified into law at the Federal level.
States aren't a universally fungible commodity that can be traded around at whim to get the best deal. It's insanely expensive and hugely disruption to pick up your business and move.
Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
As i stated before and will continue to state like a robot: The solution to labor is automation and UBI (via taxation of profits/robots). Periodically review and automate EVERY repetive task. If a 4 week workweek is implemented, that will reduce production and increase the price of goods .. effectively reducing salaries. Anything that reduces supply and makes prices go up and then makes life very hard for the poor and those living on fixed income. If you can force a company to hire people, you can force them to pay taxes. Pretty sure a company would rather pay tax than deal with uppity workers.
Re: (Score:2)
The old chemical plant would need five shifts instead of four. That would apply to all the 24 hour operations. Averaged out over 4 shifts that is 2 hours of over time a week. If 32 hours is now full time you have 10 hours of overtime,
So what would a five shift rotation look like? Would you just add a day between shift changes?
Management will probably want to cut the straight time rate enough to make the weekly check the same regardless of the extra overtime. That is not likely to over well.
Still it is an i
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting points, some are even true. Now, do the Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I'd add... If we could measure actual productivity effects we might be able to provide incentives. I'd rather focus on that, then make all money "extra".
Meaning make it possible to live without working, but allow people to work for more income to allow premium purchases.
Today the incentive is to cheat everyone else. Zero sum games always are. Prisoner's dilemma taught us that it's best to cheat your friend because they likely will too. Change the incentives.
The FACT that multiple people have "inv
Similar for telework. (Score:2)
Similarly they should give incentives for telework days. I know gov't entity in S. Calif who could easily allow a few days of telework without notable disruptions, but don't because management is old-fashioned. S. Calif. traffic needs all the help it can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly they should give incentives for telework days. I know gov't entity in S. Calif who could easily allow a few days of telework without notable disruptions, but don't because management is old-fashioned. S. Calif. traffic needs all the help it can get.
Won't happen in the current climate, too many political interests aligned against it.
Urban democrats are terrified of loss of tax revenue from downsized corporate space and less foot traffic, with the ultimate boogeyman being shuttered storefronts and a new "white flight."
Rural republicans are increasingly embracing the language of class warfare now that it aligns with their interests, painting remote work as something for "soft liberals in cities" while "Real Americans have to put on pants to do their job.
Re: (Score:1)
I agree that some in-office time is needed for collaborating on the tricky issues, but not every day for most white collar work. There are exceptions where decisions often have to be made with quick turn-around, but that's only a portion of jobs.
Partial telework is simply better for the planet.
Considering current economic uncertainty... (Score:2)
...maybe now isn't the time to be throwing out new legislation?
Let businesses decide how to employ their employees efficiently. Stop acting like they're working kids in coal mines.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not working kids in coal mines.
They're working them in auto plants, meat packing facilities, construction sites, and agriculture.
https://www.axios.com/2023/02/... [axios.com]
If it makes sense for the business, ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because people (and businesses) do not always work in their own best interest. You see this time and time again both in terms of stupid people (who can't accept widely understood facts) as well as a general resistance to change (my daddy worked 5 days a week and dammit so will my employees).
The most egregious of these is the idiots who vote against conversion of their streets into pedestrian malls under the assumptions that cars need to drive in front of their shop in order for them to get businesses. Most
Shit for Contractors (Score:3)
That takes a day's worth of money out of a contractors pocket, unless they are allowed to increase fees by 20%.
Re: (Score:2)
unless they are allowed to increase fees
Why wouldn't they be? If they aren't allowed to increase fees then they aren't contractors. See also: uber, lyft, etc.
This is cool (Score:2)
4 day work weeks are perfect for offices (Score:1)
I was a graphic designer for a large printing company for almost 15 years. There were some weeks that I required all five 8 hour days to get all of my work done. And I mean clocking in at exactly 8:00 am, taking a 30 minute lunch, and keeping all meetings and conversation away from my desk to an absolute minimum (my team could stay working and talk amongst the cubicles). Basically pop in your headphones, put your head down, and get shit done. I was lucky and had few direct calls from customers and most comm