Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Working four days means either working more hours on those four days, or getting dangerously close to losing full-time benefits (not to mention getting paid less overall).
That will be quite bad for the job market. More jobs sent overseas and more companies hiring fewer people in the states. Such top-down tinkering hurts the working class more than helps us.I think the intention of OP was to suggest not only a reduction of work days, but also a reduction of workhours by 1/5th, while keeping the same level of remuneration per week.
Maybe you should go back to working six days a week with 10 hours each?That will be quite bad for the job market. More jobs sent overseas and more companies hiring fewer people in the states. Such top-down tinkering hurts the working class more than helps us.
Before that was put into effect, it was in the mid-30's. However, at my workplace, if you routinely put in fewer than 40 hours a week, you could be demoted to part-time status, in spite of it being in the mid-30's at the time. They adjusted this down when that law went into effect, but the point is that the 40 hour work week provided a cushion against hitting that minimum limit. A 32-hour work week would be too close to the 30 hour limit for my comfort, as that is a smaller cushion than we had previously.ACA is still the law on health benefits. It stipulates that all employers of 50 or more FTEs, must provide health insurance, or pay a tax penalty. And any employee working 30 hrs/wk or more, qualifies for coverage. For the last 8 years, I voluntarily reduced my work week to 4 8hr days. So I still qualified for health benefits.
Edited to add: A state may impose a lower threshold at which an employee qualifies for health coverage. So an employer in that state could have to offer benefits to 28 hr/wk employees. But the current federal lower end is 30hrs.
I think the intention of OP was to suggest not only a reduction of work days, but also a reduction of workhours by 1/5th, while keeping the same level of remuneration per week.
No kidding. Depending on the industry, 40 hours/week isn't enough to get the required job done.
Just seems like the average person's income will have to suffer from that. Unless we somehow force companies to pay roughly the same wages.
As for what happened in the past I have no idea. I cannot imagine there wasn't some reduction people had to stomach. Maybe over time it balances out.
How would you like it to be enforced legally? By mandating benefits for 4-day workers? By increasing the minimum wage?
Why should income have to suffer? Productivity has increased, so why not decrease work time
Well people worked more in the past, but pay and quality of life is higher now.
As I see it the problem isn't that the work week is too long or the work unpleasant or hard.
Most employees have no problem with either, but a minority always seems to have problems. I wouldn't let the tail wag the dog here.
I'd be fine with the idea. With automation being what it is (and will become), four days a week may be too much for the amount of people in the workforce. More and more and items are being purchased online. Zombie-malls are cropping up. Added to this, driver-less trucks and cars. Amazon has a grocery store that's entirely automated; all your items are charged to your Amazon account. Maybe a minimum income is the idea, but I don't know if they'll be enough people working to cover everyone. Walmart and the government can't hire us all.
I would say the main reason not to do this would be the loss of industry. Much as industries left once minimum wage, work hours, and all sorts of worker's rights were implemented by law...even more industries will leave if a 4 day week is enforced.
In principle, one should keep busy 6 days leaving one day for rest.
For most of the world it's simply not a possibility. It may be possible for those who are independently wealthy, have trust funds, or are supported by their parents or someone else.
But for most people if you only work 4 days a week then you'll only eat 4 days a week, so to speak. Who can afford to only work 4 days a week?
I couldn't make bank on four days a week unless they were 10 hour days. Most people need full time work to get by, or even more. Mandating less would hurt the working class.
Working four days means either working more hours on those four days, or getting dangerously close to losing full-time benefits (not to mention getting paid less overall). Working more hours can be do-able, but for me it would either mean losing my evenings or losing two hours of sleep.
That will be quite bad for the job market. More jobs sent overseas and more companies hiring fewer people in the states. Such top-down tinkering hurts the working class more than helps us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?