Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday introduced a bill to establish a standard four-day workweek in the United States without any reduction in pay. The bill, over a four-year period, would lowe…
I’m not opposed to a 4 day work week, but I am always curious as to what jobs the studies have looked at to conclude that people with 4 work days instead of 5 do the same amount or more work.
I’m a construction worker. Despite the jokes about standing around, we work hard. I do not think that a 4 day work week would produce better results than a 5 day in my field.
Just for reference I’ve been doing home rehabilitations for lower income families. There’s not a ton of heavy lifting, there’s just a lot to do.
Also, a lot of guys in my line of work also work side jobs on their days off.
You don’t think there’s a chance that working 4 days instead of 5 reduces the physical toll to keep you going longer and working better? Wouldn’t working 4 days a week reduce your stress, allow you to recover from all that heavy lifting you mentioned, and improve your physical and mental health on the long-run?
Besides, as I understand it, if your company still wants you to work 5 days, you would still have the option. This bill would require them to pay you overtime for that extra day.
I specifically mentioned not much heavy lifting. The most taxing work I’ve had to do in the past few months was yesterday, lifting a solid core exterior for into place. And the entire second half the day was recovery while I finger painted with wood putty on all the doors and trim.
Regardless of my personal work situation, I can’t deny that there would be mental and health benefits for shorter work weeks. I just really don’t think that more work would get done in less time, which is what a lot of studies on “office” work seem to say.
For your line of work, maybe not. But who cares? They can hire more employees or pay them overtime.
We aren’t machines. What’s the point of life if all we ever do is work? Are we working to live, or living to work? A 32 hour work week makes it a 4/3 day split instead of a 5/2 day split. Seems a lot more balanced if you ask me.
Yeah, this construction worker guy doesn’t get it. There were plenty of people who said a 40-hour work week was not a good idea. People were used to working 6 or 6.5 days per week.
As a construction worker, it shouldn’t matter to you how quickly the work gets done. Why do you care? If you’re doing it for yourself, then work as much as you want. This limitation is just on how many hours you work before overtime pay.
I’m much in favor of this, but it requires the regulated overhead of an employee to be reduced.
Instead of employer insurance, public health service.
Unemployment insurance should be reworked, because that also penalizes per-employee (extremely low wage caps, that start from fresh per person).
Probably various other taxes similar to unemployment insurance.
Generally speaking, there should be no difference to hire an employee for 12 hours versus 32 versus 40 hours. Currently a lot of positions get their hours capped to avoid incurring the overhead of a ‘full time’ employee.
Ultimately speaking, it’s not really about that anyways. It’s about shrinking the ever growing wage gap.
The productivity angle is interesting but just a justification that even the capital has to either agree with or admit it’s about control, not efficiency.
My base comment was more about the 32 hour work week studies which usually coincide with bills of this nature, showing improved productivity and so the lobbyists overlords had nothing to worry about from the change.
As much as I enjoy my work, making end meet isn’t ever a simple task.
I think something people are missing when thinking less work overall will happen is that this gives opportunities for new job openings for at least part time (if not just more full time position) people to fill in the gaps, or the people already working will just get paid much better. Both are wins imo
I’m not opposed to a 4 day work week, but I am always curious as to what jobs the studies have looked at to conclude that people with 4 work days instead of 5 do the same amount or more work.
I’m a construction worker. Despite the jokes about standing around, we work hard. I do not think that a 4 day work week would produce better results than a 5 day in my field.
Just for reference I’ve been doing home rehabilitations for lower income families. There’s not a ton of heavy lifting, there’s just a lot to do.
Also, a lot of guys in my line of work also work side jobs on their days off.
You don’t think there’s a chance that working 4 days instead of 5 reduces the physical toll to keep you going longer and working better? Wouldn’t working 4 days a week reduce your stress, allow you to recover from all that heavy lifting you mentioned, and improve your physical and mental health on the long-run?
Besides, as I understand it, if your company still wants you to work 5 days, you would still have the option. This bill would require them to pay you overtime for that extra day.
I specifically mentioned not much heavy lifting. The most taxing work I’ve had to do in the past few months was yesterday, lifting a solid core exterior for into place. And the entire second half the day was recovery while I finger painted with wood putty on all the doors and trim.
Regardless of my personal work situation, I can’t deny that there would be mental and health benefits for shorter work weeks. I just really don’t think that more work would get done in less time, which is what a lot of studies on “office” work seem to say.
For your line of work, maybe not. But who cares? They can hire more employees or pay them overtime.
We aren’t machines. What’s the point of life if all we ever do is work? Are we working to live, or living to work? A 32 hour work week makes it a 4/3 day split instead of a 5/2 day split. Seems a lot more balanced if you ask me.
Yeah, this construction worker guy doesn’t get it. There were plenty of people who said a 40-hour work week was not a good idea. People were used to working 6 or 6.5 days per week.
As a construction worker, it shouldn’t matter to you how quickly the work gets done. Why do you care? If you’re doing it for yourself, then work as much as you want. This limitation is just on how many hours you work before overtime pay.
I’m much in favor of this, but it requires the regulated overhead of an employee to be reduced.
Instead of employer insurance, public health service.
Unemployment insurance should be reworked, because that also penalizes per-employee (extremely low wage caps, that start from fresh per person).
Probably various other taxes similar to unemployment insurance.
Generally speaking, there should be no difference to hire an employee for 12 hours versus 32 versus 40 hours. Currently a lot of positions get their hours capped to avoid incurring the overhead of a ‘full time’ employee.
Ultimately speaking, it’s not really about that anyways. It’s about shrinking the ever growing wage gap.
The productivity angle is interesting but just a justification that even the capital has to either agree with or admit it’s about control, not efficiency.
My base comment was more about the 32 hour work week studies which usually coincide with bills of this nature, showing improved productivity and so the lobbyists overlords had nothing to worry about from the change.
As much as I enjoy my work, making end meet isn’t ever a simple task.
I think something people are missing when thinking less work overall will happen is that this gives opportunities for new job openings for at least part time (if not just more full time position) people to fill in the gaps, or the people already working will just get paid much better. Both are wins imo
It looks like it’s about overtime - people getting paid more when they work more than 32 hours.