Senator Bernie Sanders this week unveiled legislation to reduce the standard workweek in the United States from 40 hours to 32, without a reduction in pay, saying Americans are working longer hours for less pay despite advances in technology and productivity.
The law, if passed, would pare down the workweek over a four-year period, lowering the threshold at which workers would be eligible to receive overtime pay. The 40-hour workweek has stood as the standard in the United States since it became enshrined in federal law in 1940.
In a hearing on Thursday before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on the proposed law, Mr. Sanders, independent of Vermont, said profits from boosts in productivity over the decades had been reaped only by corporate leaders, and not shared with workers.
“The sad reality is that Americans now work more hours than the people of any other wealthy nation,” he said, citing statistics that workers in the U.S. on average work for hundreds of hours longer each week than their counterparts in Japan, Britain and Germany.
Mr. Sanders is far from the first to propose the idea, which has been floated by Richard Nixon, pitched by autoworkers and experimented with by companies ranging from Shake Shack to Kickstarter and Unilever’s New Zealand unit.
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
How might a 32-hour workweek change the way you value and manage your time?
@9KWNBGP2mos2MO
32 hours a week would be nice for sure. but I wonder how my money will change.
@Patriot-#1776Constitution2mos2MO
Answer – workers will be so unproductive that goods and services will be generated at unprecedentedly slow rate, business will become dramatically less productive, the economy will tank, and the government will gain more power over our lives.
@9KWQWMG2mos2MO
You'll have more time outside of work to sleep or do whatever else you want.
32 hours a week sounds pretty good will definitely increase productivity and employment.
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
Could reducing the standard workweek create a better work-life balance, or would it lead to increased stress to fit current workloads into fewer hours?
@9KWQWMG2mos2MO
Its a benefit because it'll be easier to balance work-life and you'd get more sleep. Also a negative because stress will increase because there will be more work, or the work will be faster.
It'll mean more people will get hired as you'd need 3 work teams each covering 4 days, with a little overlap for the teams also making your workers less tired and more productive due to having more energy.
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
Do you believe a shorter workweek would improve or harm the quality of workers' output, and why?
@9KWMDPLRepublican2mos2MO
improve, it would allow more rest time which in end effect would create more productivity.
@9KWLZP32mos2MO
yes because people spend so much of their life at work, with a little free time I'm sure you would have a higher likely hood on people wanting to work longer and not quit.
@MooseCharlieSocialist2mos2MO
It would also require overtime pay at time and a half for workdays longer than eight hours, and overtime pay at double a worker’s regular pay for workdays longer than 12 hours.
@D1plom4tLlamaGreen2mos2MO
Common misconception. Price will only go up a little bit, due to minor extra expenses. But wages in the US will only be a small part of the total cost of getting a product on the shelf, so it won’t go up by as much, percentage wise, as the wages per hour
Competition ensures this
@MooseCharlieSocialist2mos2MO
They’re getting that $$ back one way or another.
@D1plom4tLlamaGreen2mos2MO
Eventually. That’s the issue with capitalism; you constantly have to enact new laws to ensure people get to live their life with a fair wage.
But hey, cross that bridge yada yada.
@LazyRightW1ngLibertarian2mos2MO
Someone doesn't understand the free market.
@JollyRelishSocialist2mos2MO
Studies and trials in other countries has shown the production by employees has increased under the 32 hour work model and companies results have increased.
Imagine being against this and wanting to work 40 hours. You know it’ll apply to you as well right?
@SomberUnanimousLibertarian2mos2MO
The government has no right to say how many hours a person should or should not work.
@JollyRelishSocialist2mos2MO
You are free to work more or less. This establishes a standard to base things off of, just like how 40 is the existing standard
@SomberUnanimousLibertarian2mos2MO
There shouldn’t be a standard or overtime or minimum wage. Let me and an employee or employer talk and agree on terms then go from there. It’s not rocket science.
@9CJ6CB62mos2MO
No, give minimum wage laws to states, but enact a federal minimum floor for minimum wages. Allow workers to negotiate with companies on things past that point, and scale the minimum wage per state to inflation, so that the minimum will actually remain stable.
@JollyRelishSocialist2mos2MO
You're the reason labor laws, minimum wages, and OT regulations exist. Because employers want to pay less while working you more hours.
@9CJ6CB62mos2MO
Yes it does, we gave it that power through the establishment of labor laws that we DESPERATELY needed in the early 1900s. These laws serve to benefit workers as a whole, and they remain extremely successful in doing so due to their ability to pay workers a higher share of what they actually provide to the company.
@EmptyYakRepublican2mos2MO
Remote workers wont be happy when they find out Bernie Sanders wants to double the hours they work every week.
@ReformGrasshopperDemocrat2mos2MO
lol I wish this were true. I’ve over here doing 60+ hour weeks consistently. If I was in office you’d barely get 40 out of me
@Int3grityFerretGreen2mos2MO
Yep. I'm on the computer at 8am off by 5pm and fielding random stuff further into the evening. Meanwhile the folks in the office show up at 9ish and clock out at 5ish. I write the most business but got a pittance of a merit bump. Guess who's starting at 9 from now on?
@Patriot-#1776Constitution2mos2MO
The government has one role – only one – defending our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. Beyond that, it has no role whatsoever, because government and political power are grave evils. It has zero business regulating how long people work, what people are paid, etc.
@9CJ6CB61mo1MO
And absurd amounts of economic power in corporate business isn’t?
No, because business must persuade you to voluntarily purchase their products and services, whereas government can send people with guns and chains to force you to comply with its will. Should I increase the power of the latter group to decrease the power of the former?
@9CJ6CB61mo1MO
When businesses converge and own all of the things you buy, whether monopoly or conglomerated, they have FAR more power over you than a government can name when not actively trying to screw with the people. Indirect power is still power, and there’s lots of it in the corporate sector, so if you ask me, yes, increase government power AND accountability, and decrease corporate power while increasing transparency in their businesses.
Oh I'm so sorry, I forgot about that Major Corporation that owns a monopoly in every industry. Oh yeah that's right – bummer for the socialist arguments – it doesn't exist, and it's never existed. But Government has a monopoly on the use of force – everyone else gets punished for using force, government doesn't.
“No loss of pay” meanwhile a loaf of bread goes up $3…..
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
