Shorten 40 hour work week proposal

[K. A. Pital]

Ah. Sorry, I thought you were disagreeing with him.

That said, I'm not sure what you mean by "the necessary time." The time necessary to do what, exactly?

To produce the same or even greater amount of goods.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The problem is that this all goes off the rails if a decent living is not affordable on 29 hours.

....and that's the current fly in the ointment.

Although give me another year and I might be back to truly financially independent.

However - in my case I'd have "traditional" job at 29 hours/week and then being making additional money off those "side interests". Played right, though, it might also give me a level of security and independence from the wage slavery I wouldn't otherwise have, making staying with an employer more of a choice and less an act of desperation. It still cycles back to having two jobs rather than one.

This is where I'm at. My primary occupation is 100% commission sales doing something that I very much enjoy and believe in, but which probably won't pay all the bills for another couple of years, so I pick up side gigs to cover the rest. While I don't relish the financial insecurity, the fact that I can drop one of those side jobs if an employer starts making unreasonable demands or it interferes with my main career has made the last 2 years of my life the happiest I have ever been and the freedom and ownership has allowed me to experience a level of personal growth I've never before experienced. I won't claim that everyone will have the same mileage just from working fewer hours, but I can testify that the benefits of not being overworked into dust can be truly amazing and we would be a much happier society if more people had them.

Anecdote: I managed to wrangle this schedule for myself back when I worked in a big office, and it was fantastic (until they started fucking with it). I (theoretically) worked 10 hours on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, and had the rest completely off. It was great when they actually let me do it instead of calling me in for a random teleconference at 2am on my day off that I could've done from home if it weren't for the security protocols or some bullshit. I had the whole weekend to really relax, and Wednesday to do errands during the day when it's not crowded. Working two 10-hour days in a row instead of five 8-hour days is a breeze, and I never got better sleep in a traditional job.

And I bet if they let you leave whenever you got the job done, you could have been just as productive in 5 or 6 of those 10 hours. I think most of us, given the choice, would rather put in the 20-25 honestly productive hours (not checking e-mail, attending pointless meetings, etc.) and then go home than the 40-80+ hours of theoretical work that is the current norm.

[Raw Shark]

Anecdote: I managed to wrangle this schedule for myself back when I worked in a big office, and it was fantastic (until they started fucking with it). I (theoretically) worked 10 hours on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, and had the rest completely off. It was great when they actually let me do it instead of calling me in for a random teleconference at 2am on my day off that I could've done from home if it weren't for the security protocols or some bullshit. I had the whole weekend to really relax, and Wednesday to do errands during the day when it's not crowded. Working two 10-hour days in a row instead of five 8-hour days is a breeze, and I never got better sleep in a traditional job.

And I bet if they let you leave whenever you got the job done, you could have been just as productive in 5 or 6 of those 10 hours. I think most of us, given the choice, would rather put in the 20-25 honestly productive hours (not checking e-mail, attending pointless meetings, etc.) and then go home than the 40-80+ hours of theoretical work that is the current norm.

The job was never done, but I had no problem being just as (or more, because I was better-rested) productive in four 10-hour days as I did in five 8-hour ones. Me and one other guy carried the whole 5-person team for two years, until they fired that guy for political reasons, expected me to pick up the whole load, and I shortly melted down and went back to driving a taxi.

[Patroklos]

Anecdote: I managed to wrangle this schedule for myself back when I worked in a big office, and it was fantastic (until they started fucking with it). I (theoretically) worked 10 hours on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, and had the rest completely off. It was great when they actually let me do it instead of calling me in for a random teleconference at 2am on my day off that I could've done from home if it weren't for the security protocols or some bullshit. I had the whole weekend to really relax, and Wednesday to do errands during the day when it's not crowded. Working two 10-hour days in a row instead of five 8-hour days is a breeze, and I never got better sleep in a traditional job.

Some of our employees on the civilian side do this too, they can have either Monday or Friday as their off day and work their extra hours in the morning or evening. Some issues we have identified:

1.) If these people are a manager many of their subordinates end up working the same extra hours when they do not have the extra day off by virtue of "the boss is still working." I don't think either party is doing this intentionally, its just a natural side effect.

2.) On the other side of the coin if they are subordinates working those extra hours many times they can't do their job without a lot of other people being there, which they are not since they aren't staying late or coming in early. This ends up being paper pushing or email spamming time which can be good for some if their job requires that. We have a lot of machinists and fabricators so a lot of times either the shop is open and running or its not, working outside those hours isn't really possible.

3.) When the entire workforce is not operating on this schedule there is some inefficiency built in especially if the person who has that day off is a gate keeper of some sort. People will work all week to finish a proposal or project only to find out its Friday and they can't get it signed off because thats their flex day. And then on Monday the NEXT guy has his flex day.

Not insurmountable but just some observations that came from our town hall meetings. Flex schedules are just an experiment here so far.

[Elheru Aran]

Retail and foodservice bring their own complexities as you naturally have a large number of people working for as minimal a pay as the company can wrangle, and the company has to have sufficient coverage each day. If more people work longer hours for fewer days, the company has to hire more people to cover the shortfall in coverage.

Speaking from experience, it is absolutely no fun when you're busy on the line and then the manager has to send a couple of people home because otherwise they'd go overtime.

[Starglider]

There are a few possible solutions

You missed the current actual solution, which is to print money and use it to support entitlement spending - with a generous cut to banks to compensate for their hard work in obfuscating the situation enough that the government can claim that it is not in fact printing money. This actually mostly works in an economy where falling production costs (due to cheap offshore labour and immigration) mean that many prices would be deflating if it wasn't for the government generated inflation. The hard-core Krugmanites even believe this is a reasonable and sustainable model; that inflation is a reasonable means to tax and redistribute. Sure it destroys middle-class savers and causes asset bubbles that benefit the already wealthy - where the inflation is not offset by falling production costs - but those feckless young people don't deserve to own houses anyway, right? As long as energy stays reasonably cheap (e.g. the fracking continues), you can/should/must trust the government to print just the right amount of money. A high national debt is a sign of strength and trustworthiness!

The primary reason why this will explode horribly is again, globalisation. Capital is more mobile than ever before and the dollar is closer to losing reserve currency status than any time since Bretton Woods. The room for maneuvre between hyperinflation and default (on either the debt or the entitlement obligations) is constantly narrowing and as yet there is no escape route in sight. Mass immigration into the US does buy some time in making the demographics a bit more favourable, but when the obsolesence by robotics really does ramp up it will actually make the problem worse.

[Rycon67]

I doubt the baby boom generation will wake up and smell the coffee before they kick the bucket, so I don't see things getting much better for another 20 years unless the economy and markets crash for real and wipe out the excess wealth that would have been used to rig the political system, which is what happened in the 1930's and is directly responsible for the emergence of a strong middle class in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Absent that, I'm not sure how the combination of lower and lower demand for workers and higher and higher wealth transfer to the rich will play out, but I can't imagine it will be good.

The baby boomer generation, for better or worse, isn't going to be a factor in the workplace beyond the next 5-10 years.

I'm a blue collar factory worker, and at most of the plants I've been in(automotive, heater and A/C manufacturing, dairy) at least half to 2/3 if not more of the workers, ranging everywhere from the entry level workers out on the lines up to senior managers and technical/skilled jobs are people who will be at or near retirement age within the next 5-10 years.

Even with new technology that I've been watching systematically roll out the last few years the automates a lot of tasks, there's still going to be plenty of jobs out there for a good long while simply because so many of those currently in the workforce are getting really close to exiting the workforce while the number of people that will remain in the workforce or that can enter the workforce is just so much smaller.

[mr friendly guy]

Well I officially worked 96 hours this fortnight (pay periods are fortnightly rather than weekly for me), but realistically its more likely 100 hours a fortnight at least. This fortnight I am rostered on for 110 hours a fortnight or 55 hour week. Where can I sign up for this 30 hour week.

Realistically this isn't going to happen for the medical profession.

[Zaune]

There's also the possibility of just saying "fuck it" and going with the oft-mooted idea of a Basic Guaranteed Income, which is frankly looking more and more attractive with every news report about a marvellous new robotic method of doing this that and the other.

I mean, we''re going to have to do it some time, right? Might as well just get the obsolescence of human labour over with instead of kicking it down the road with wage stagnation and hoping we'll be safely and cosily dead by the time the shit finally hits the fan.

[Starglider]

There's also the possibility of just saying "fuck it" and going with the oft-mooted idea of a Basic Guaranteed Income, which is frankly looking more and more attractive with every news report about a marvellous new robotic method of doing this that and the other.

Best if somewhere with a tradition of extreme taxation and heavy redistribution e.g. France or Sweden try that first, we'll watch and see how it turns out. Hopefully France because they'll find some way to make Germany pay for it, which will be extra amusing to watch.

[K. A. Pital]

France isn't dependent on coal and gas from Russia or Turkmenistan, at least. Germany's anti-nuclear craze brought it nowhere.

[Zaune]

Best if somewhere with a tradition of extreme taxation and heavy redistribution e.g. France or Sweden try that first, we'll watch and see how it turns out. Hopefully France because they'll find some way to make Germany pay for it, which will be extra amusing to watch.

Norway might be better; less chance of the Europhobes poisoning the well that way.

Mind you, I think we might regret waiting for one of the relatively prosperous Nordic states to feel compelled to implement BGI. Britain's likely to hit the "implement it or the wheels will come off" point much sooner because we already had a structural unemployment problem at the regional level for a long while before automation started creating a global one.

[Darmalus]

A suitably aggressive negative income tax could eliminate the need for a defined work week or minimum wage, since it effectively creates a hourly minimum wage for not working while still keeping an incentive to earn more.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I doubt the baby boom generation will wake up and smell the coffee before they kick the bucket, so I don't see things getting much better for another 20 years unless the economy and markets crash for real and wipe out the excess wealth that would have been used to rig the political system, which is what happened in the 1930's and is directly responsible for the emergence of a strong middle class in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Absent that, I'm not sure how the combination of lower and lower demand for workers and higher and higher wealth transfer to the rich will play out, but I can't imagine it will be good.

The baby boomer generation, for better or worse, isn't going to be a factor in the workplace beyond the next 5-10 years.

I'm a blue collar factory worker, and at most of the plants I've been in(automotive, heater and A/C manufacturing, dairy) at least half to 2/3 if not more of the workers, ranging everywhere from the entry level workers out on the lines up to senior managers and technical/skilled jobs are people who will be at or near retirement age within the next 5-10 years.

Even with new technology that I've been watching systematically roll out the last few years the automates a lot of tasks, there's still going to be plenty of jobs out there for a good long while simply because so many of those currently in the workforce are getting really close to exiting the workforce while the number of people that will remain in the workforce or that can enter the workforce is just so much smaller.

It's not the demographics of the workplace that affect labor laws, it's the demographics of the voting population, and people are generally much more likely to vote after they retire.

[Simon_Jester]

And I bet if they let you leave whenever you got the job done, you could have been just as productive in 5 or 6 of those 10 hours. I think most of us, given the choice, would rather put in the 20-25 honestly productive hours (not checking e-mail, attending pointless meetings, etc.) and then go home than the 40-80+ hours of theoretical work that is the current norm.

Well, the catch is that if you don't check email you can't use email to communicate with staff, and at some point you're telling people stuff they actually need to know to do their jobs effectively... but which they don't bother to read. As a schoolteacher I have this issue.

If you don't have some meetings it makes it a hell of a lot harder to plan and to ensure that people are on the same page about upcoming projects... but it's hard to figure out in advance which meetings are pointless sometimes.

And so it goes.

So the argument for 40 hours is that even if you're only "honestly productive" 25 hours a day, you still have a bunch of extra logistical crap that must be done to ensure that you actually get in that productivity. The white-collar equivalent of maintaining your tools, that sort of thing.

A lot of this could be avoided if we just, say, gave every two or three white collar workers a secretary to handle their paperwork and keep track of stuff. That's probably how you'd actually implement the idea of replacing three 40-hour workers with four 30-hour workers in real life.

But while unemployment is higher than it used to be, it's not that high, not so high that something like that will reliably pay off in the eyes of whoever's making hiring decisions.

[Colonel Olrik]

Well I officially worked 96 hours this fortnight (pay periods are fortnightly rather than weekly for me), but realistically its more likely 100 hours a fortnight at least. This fortnight I am rostered on for 110 hours a fortnight or 55 hour week. Where can I sign up for this 30 hour week.

Realistically this isn't going to happen for the medical profession.

Germany is not exactly a basket case country, and my medical doctor wife just did that - signed up for 30 hours to have more time with our one year old. Granted, her new schedule will pay her 3/4 of what she got for the 40 hours, but who cares. Her salary is high enough for that not to be a concern. I could easily do the same as an engineer, but I like my job, already do home office once or twice a week anyway, and never work more than the 40 hours (actually I do many times, but get them as vacation days afterward) so don't feel the need for a smaller schedule at the moment.

[Rycon67]

Alternatively, instead of shortening the general workweek to less then 40 hours, what about the feasibility of maintaining the current weekly working hours(not necessarily counting any overtime needed for a job or task) but giving employees another two or three weeks worth of paid vacation each year? Instead of the current three or four weeks of paid time off most employees get by about the 10 year mark, bump it up to five or six weeks off.

[Broomstick]

A lot of this could be avoided if we just, say, gave every two or three white collar workers a secretary to handle their paperwork and keep track of stuff. That's probably how you'd actually implement the idea of replacing three 40-hour workers with four 30-hour workers in real life.

That's actually how it used to be done - I was even doing it during the sunset of that system. Then we got computers, automated half of what secretaries used to do and threw the rest of it back on the white collar workers.

[madd0ct0r]

Alternatively, instead of shortening the general workweek to less then 40 hours, what about the feasibility of maintaining the current weekly working hours(not necessarily counting any overtime needed for a job or task) but giving employees another two or three weeks worth of paid vacation each year? Instead of the current three or four weeks of paid time off most employees get by about the 10 year mark, bump it up to five or six weeks off.

you mean like most of europe?
I'd rather have a little free extra time each week then a fortnight to sit on the beach and recover from the previous year.

[Raw Shark]

And I bet if they let you leave whenever you got the job done, you could have been just as productive in 5 or 6 of those 10 hours. I think most of us, given the choice, would rather put in the 20-25 honestly productive hours (not checking e-mail, attending pointless meetings, etc.) and then go home than the 40-80+ hours of theoretical work that is the current norm.

Well, the catch is that if you don't check email you can't use email to communicate with staff, and at some point you're telling people stuff they actually need to know to do their jobs effectively... but which they don't bother to read. As a schoolteacher I have this issue. [snip]

I had separate work and personal email accounts. I checked my work email about every five minutes (I got shit constantly, some of which involved vital procedural changes that I would have to teach a couple thousand people immediately, some of which I had to forward to the appropriate person ASAP, and some of which had nothing to do with me), and my personal email exactly zero times at the office in three years.

[Starglider]

I'd rather have a little free extra time each week then a fortnight to sit on the beach and recover from the previous year.

Just take your holiday time in increments of one day. Most employers will not be bothered.