Sen. Bernie Sanders proposes a 4 day ,32 hour work week. Are you in favor?

[exitseven]

He cites that the US has one of the longest work week despite all the increases in productivity. He mentions France has a 35 hour week and Belgium has 32. I know that I could easily do my job in 32 hours. I could probably do it in less time. I think it is time to retire the 5 day work week

Updates

1 mo

I think Bernie is a commie but he is right. Why is 40 hours a magic number? I used to work six days a week when I was in my 20s. The business moved to a bigger place and once we moved I told my boss that I was not going to work 6 days a week anymore so we closed on Saturday. Somehow we figured it out. The government says that anything over 40 hours yo have to be paid time and a half.

Updates

1 mo

There is no magic with the number 40. If the government changed it to 32 you would see businesses get on board pretty quick. They would figure it out. As long as there is a level playing field nobody would have an advantage. Other countries do it, There are many countries in Europe tha thave a whole month off in the summer. In this v=country unles you work for the government you migh get 2 weeks off for vacation. Some places just call it paid time off so you take sick time from

[purplepoppy]

Wasn't modern technogy and computers, etc supposed to achieve this years ago? All that's happened is people are doing less real work and filling their time with needless paperwork for the sake of it.

[exitseven]

Yes this is the point. Productivity has gone up a lot over the last 50 years but line workers do not get any of the benefits from this.

[Melicermenocermeno]

i think that is good because here in the US people work too many hours

[WhiteSteve]

Think of everything we used to have to do by hand, keep hard copies of records and data, perform tasks manually, etc, etc, etc.

All that changed and everything has been computerized for 20+ years, really more like 40. Mom & Pop businesses are fewer and farther between by the year, everything seems to be at least a medium sized corporation, if not a huge one. The folks at the top are doing GREAT. Besides the obvious question of “if they’re making so much more money, why aren’t WE?”, it also occurs to me that our loads should’ve been lightened as workers. But they never were. Most of us work more than the generations just before us. Machines are here doing both the literal and figurative heavy lifting, the owners make more money from astronomically higher productivity-to-cost ratios, or even just plain productivity, you can have face-to-face meetings over the internet from anywhere in the world, increasing communication and decreasing travel cost/time to do business…. I mean, so much has changed since the 80s and 90s, and the owners benefitted, but the workers didn’t.

And instead, they got even more demanding of us. Don’t compare what we do relative to last year, compare it to 1975 and count every star in the sky that you even have it THIS easy, bossman. We should be working 20 hour weeks and be damn satisfied with our way of life from any point in the second half of the 20th century, but every year they just demand more from you. And they tell us we have to figure out how to “do more with less”…. all time corporate cop-out phrase, don’t ever listen to or respect anyone who tells you that, free life advice, haha.

We should be working less for at least the same money (old profit margins should be just fine for ownership, pass the surplus to the people who actually roll out of bed to do the hands-on work), fewer hours, more vacation time.

If the point of life has become being obedient and productive worker ants in the name of the GDP of your country, stand in front of a mirror and slap yourself until the sense starts creeping in, lmao

[WindAtMyBack]

Bernie Sanders is a moron and a socialist. He seems to think that things magically appear without working for it. It's quite simple. The more you work, the more you have. Apparently Bernie wants to screw the economy and send productivity into the ground.

What does that even mean he proposes a 32 hour week? The closest thing we have to a standardized work week is for overtime pay. If you start paying overtime after 32 hours, it's just another pay increase. So call it what it is.

Of course it doesn't matter to people on salary since overtime pay doesn't apply to them.

[handsomelad70]

Yep, which is one reason a younger Bernie should have been your President.(I'd go five days,30 hours.)

[Tiptoetamm]

I don't know if they paid more I guess but some people really rely on 60 70 80 hour work weeks to survive. Growing up in the 90s my dad works 50 to 60 hours a week to provide for us. This was a long time ago. Prices have only gone up. Most people right now I live in page of the paycheck struggling. So cutting it to 35 hour work weeks would be putting people out of their homes and making them go hungry so I would say that's probably not the best idea. Make it an option for some people absolutely for everyone make it happen for everyone I don't know about that I feel like that's going to have a bad outcome

[Jersey2]

Well said

[Tiptoetamm]

Thank you

[exitseven]

did you read the question. ? Bernie proposes people work 4 days and get paid for 5. He says that the productivity has risen dramatically in the last 50 years. Technology is responsible for most of it. Only the 1 percenters get the benefit.

[Tiptoetamm]

Yeah my good friend explained it to me yesterday and I definitely see why this makes sense now. Had to kind of break it down and explain in detail the benefits from doing it this way. Which makes way more sense. So I definitely put my foot on my mouth on this one lol

[Jersey2]

Fewer work hours, less productivity and less pay. Bernie has never really worked a day in his life and that socialist has 3 houses I believe and flies on private jets. He just sells pipe dreams.

[JacobJordan]

32 hours would be great until you consider most Americans can't even afford to survive on 50+ hours. At present standing the apx minimum livable wage is roughly 34-36$/hr. Not to be confused with the minimum wage which is still in the teens. Very companies in the US would struggle to pay their staff such a wage and they wouldn't have to increase prices to do so. All they have to do is take a bit off their profit and pay people a minimum livable wage. They do that and they will see huge increases to profits because people will finally have some extra money.

[WindAtMyBack]

"At present standing the apx minimum livable wage is roughly 34-36$/hr"

You can't be serious. You can make a living on $10 / hr. Anyone who needs 34-36/hr is doing something VERY wrong.

"All they have to do is take a bit off their profit and pay people a minimum livable wage. "

You can't be serious about this either. There is no way companies can give that kind of pay increase without raising prices. How much profit do you think companies make?

[JacobJordan]

Lol the idea that you call living 10$/hr proves my damn point. You know what I pay my staff? Close to 100k a year because I want them to LIVE. 10$/hr for 160 hours is 1600 after taxes you would likely be left with around 1300. That is less than half of the average cost of living per month. So there is no point debating with someone who clearly wants to be struggling for the rest of his life. If you can "live off 10$/hr" prove it. Live like the average American on such a wage.

[WindAtMyBack]

I know for a fact that you can live on that much, because I live on less than that.

What you are really saying is you need a lot of money to live a luxurious lifestyle. That's something completely different than a "minimum livable wage". If you want to live in luxury, then the sky is the limit. But it's pretty meaningless to put it in the context of needing it.

The VAST majority of Americans live on far less than the amount you claim in needed.

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack no the vast majority of Americans barely survive on the amount they make. Average apartment cost in my state was (haven't been there in 3 years) 1200-2000 average wage is 18 ish. That is a 1 bedroom apartment by the way 4 weeks -> 2320. + car + gas + gasoline+ heat + electric + water + food + insurance + phone + internet. Some places rent cheaper generally up to 2 hours away of course. State next to mine same issue state next it same problem in fact nearly every state I spent time in was suffering from nearly identical problems where most of the people were struggling to pay for things. There were mid 20s guys who said they were struggling to afford food. Meanwhile the US is sending billions to fight in wars on the other side of the planet. I did what I could to fill in where the US fucking failed the people but I could only do so much.

[WindAtMyBack]

"the vast majority of Americans barely survive on the amount they make"

That is not true. Even if it is true, that is what you were talking about. You said "minimum livable wage", which means barely getting by.

The thing is that you are making broad blanket statements, then trying to justify it with specific exceptions. When you make a blanket statement, what it costs where you live is irrelevant.

The median wage in the US is around 46K. And they are doing far better than barely getting by. Keep in mind that is the median, which means half the people are making less than that.

If someone can't afford to live in some of the most expensive places, then move to a place that's much cheaper. The wages will be lower there, but you will normally come out ahead (As long as it's a city and not in the middle of nowhere.)

[exitseven]

If the work week was set by the government to be 32 hours instead of 40 hours most businesses would not want to pay all that overtime so they would be forced to figure it out.

[WindAtMyBack]

They figured it out long ago. They outsource to other countries.

[Daniela1982]

@WindAtMyBack I'd like to see you live on $10 an hour and at 32 hrs a week. That wouldn't even pay your groceries for a month, as those prices went up too.

[WindAtMyBack]

@Daniela1982

I didn't say 32 hours a week. But I DO live on LESS than $10 an hour of full time work. I know for a fact that you can live on that because I do it. And no, I'm not living on the street. I live in a nice house in a very nice neighborhood. And I don't live on rice, beans and potatoes either.

It always amazes me how much people think they need to live on.

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack trying renting imbecile you are ignoring an entire factor in a pathetic attempt to justify your awful math skills. Renting consumes 50% of the average income 🤣🤣🤣. Of course when you own a home (which has a lower mortgage than an apartment has rent) it is easier to get by with less but newsflash moron a huge portion of americans aren't in a position to just "own a home" as they can't even afford their apartments and they have zero backlog of cash. So what do you suggest those Americans do lol? You don't have to present the same level of mental retardation as most home owners just because you have one. I have multiple homes and I still understand how impossible it is for a huge swath of Americans.

[Daniela1982]

@WindAtMyBack Where exactly can you live for $1600 a month - before taxes? Not unless you won the lottery or were left a lot of money in a will. Where I live $1600 a month wouldn't even pay a month's rent. 🤔

[JacobJordan]

@Daniela1982 he is ignoring all those that rent to try and justify his argument because if he doesn't he is wrong and he is desperate to be right

[WindAtMyBack]

@daniela1982

I live in the Midwest. Where I live has a below average cost of living, but is not the lowest in the country. Low end apartments are below $500 a month. I wouldn't want to live there though. I'd be fine living in a 700-800 a month apartment. With a roommate, a lot less.

1600 a month is WAY above average for the country. You can't cherry pick and apply the highest cost of living to the whole country.

Most people these days live in large cites, which tend to have a high cost of living. But there are a lot of mid-size and even large cites that have a lower cost of living.

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack kindly shut up when you have zero fucking clue of what you are talking about. The average cost of living in the US is 2500-3500/month

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack 68% of Americans wouldn't be able to cover their living expenses for 1 month if they lost their jobs. www.google.com/.../68-of-americans-couldnt-cover-their-living-expenses-for-even-a-month-if-they-lost-their-job-survey-finds-the-good-news-now-is-the-best-time-in-years-to-fix-that-a9842d35 you are arguing a point you have zero hope of defending. Just accept that you are wrong.

[exitseven]

@WindAtMyBack how can anyone live on 400 bucks a week? Groceries for a family of 4 is 200 bucks a wèek.

[JacobJordan]

He is specifically using the filter of owning a home with no mortgage as his justification.

[WindAtMyBack]

Yes, I own a home with no mortgage. But that is not what I'm using to justify costs. It's not difficult to know what rent is. As I already said, I can get an apartment in an area I'd be willing to live for under $600 a month ( I just looked ). For around $750 a month there are a large number of apartments, including a few in nice suburbs. If I really wanted to cut costs, I'd grab one of the <600 apartments.

What I originally commented on was your claim "minimum livable wage is roughly 34-36$/hr".
What it costs where you live is irrelevant. What people spend on average is irrelevant. Neither of those are the minimum needed to live.

The same thing happens whenever this type of thing comes up, including the minimum wage debate. A bunch of people living in the most expensive parts of the country make a wrong assumption that the whole country is like that. National policies like Sander's suggestion and minimum wage apply to the whole country, not just the most expensive places. People who advocate 20/hr minimum wage don't realize that is damn good money in some places, yet it still applies everywhere.

@daniela1982 Mentioned 1600 a month. Only four states have an average that high for a one bedroom apartment. There are 20 states with an average under 1000. The lowest is under 700, with several under 800.

Those are all averages, which means if you look around, you can find something considerably cheaper.

My comment about 10/hr is about 1500 a month take-home for full time. With 700 for rent, that leaves 800 for everything else, which is more than enough.

It's not like I've never paid rent and paid bills. I've been living on my own for almost 50 years. Current rent prices are easy to look up. For everything else, I have considerable experience living on less than $800 a month. So yea, I know for a fact that a person can live on 10/hr. I could probably even do it in California if I lived in a cheaper part (like the north Central Valley).

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack you have no idea how taxes work. 1600 is not 1500 after tax try again. At no point in this conversation have you been correct. Do you know why an average exists? Because that is what MOST people pay. Same way generalizations apply to most people not all. Average is the same. MOST are pay that amount. If you actually run out the numbers for the average costs of everything you would get a very different number. And that number is what people should be being paid. Unlike you I am not dumb enough to forget how averages work and how they apply.

[WindAtMyBack]

I used an online calculator to estimate the take home pay. First, 10/hr is over 1720 a month, not 1600.

You keep talking about average. I remind you that my original comment was not about average. It was about the MINIMUM needed to live.

YOU are the one being stupid and not understand the difference between average and minimum. The average is completely irrelevant to anything I've said.

But yes, I fully understand average. I was a math geek when I was young. I was also a 4.0 student in college. Stop calling me stupid.

My annual SS COLA is based on the CPI. I'm probably a lot more aware of how that's calculated than you are. There are different CPIs used for different purposes. The one used for SS calculations is based on a "working class" person - which will be different than people in other income categories. It's called the clerical CPI or something like that. Which means it's based on the salary of clerical workers, and how they spend their money.

THAT is an average. The minimum cost to live is not. By definition the minimum is less than the average.

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack lol 40hr/week at 10/hr and you hit 1700+ lol you definitely suck at math. 40x 10 is 400. 400x 4 is 1600. I mean really you are a special level of retard where you can't even work bath mathematics. And you were a math whiz and still can't even do math. I wouldn't advertise that with math skills that shit mate. You have been consistently wrong across the board and also you are talking about minimum wage I am talking about minimum livable wage which I even said in my first fuckin comment. So not only are you shit at math you have the reading comprehension of a gopher

[WindAtMyBack]

There are 4 1/3 weeks in a month. That's the right way to calculate it. Multiplying by 4 is just an easy rule of thumb, not the accurate way.

52/12 = 4 1/3

Or if you want to do it another way:

400 * 52 = 20800
20800 / 12 = 1733

I said 1720 the first time because I multiplied times a rounded 4.3 instead of 4 1/3

There is almost no tax at that income level. So yea, the take home is a pretty high percent of the gross. I just used the online calculator again, with a corrected state tax rate. The take home pay is closer to 1550.

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack you don't get paid for 1/3 weeks worth of work you get paid for 1 week or 2 weeks. As you well know. The absolute lengths you are going through to try and be right is sad.

[WindAtMyBack]

Huh?

Are you seriously trying to say that in a 31 day month that you work a couple of days for free? Are you seriously saying that a 30-31 day month should be calculated the same way as a 28 day (4 week) month?

It's currently March. Bring up your calendar. There are 21 work days. Are you really saying that you work one of those days for free?

Next month has 22 work days. Are you trying to say that you work two of those days for free?

Or do you still stand behind the multiply times four idea?

This is straight math. It's elementary school level arithmetic.

I showed the math. There are 52 weeks in a year. At 400 a week that is 400 * 52 = 20800

Don't try to tell me that is wrong.

There are 12 months in a year. Now take 20800 and divide by 12. That is 1733.

Please don't tell me that you can't do elementary school level arithmetic. I don't believe that. But I do believe that you are not thinking it through properly.

Either you are seriously bad at math, or you are trolling. If you are bad at math, that is fine. A lot of people are. I used to tutor math in college. I tutored people who were terrible at math, That is perfectly fine. But please don't pretend you know math when you don't.

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack pay is on a 7 day or 14 day schedule is what I am saying idiot you do not get paid for partial weeks unless fired. There are 52 7 day blocks there is a remainder of.14 7 day blocks. It does not mean you don't get paid it it means you get paid in a different year than that block. The fact you don't understand this is sad and proof you should never have been teaching math cause you are garbage at it

[JacobJordan]

And since the standard work week is 40 hours per 7 day block and the average month grants 4 7 day blocks your average monthly total is 1600 some months it might be 2k. Another fact that any person with even an elementary understanding of math would know and the fact you don't further proves your math skills are borderline non existent

[JacobJordan]

After which tax and all other deductions need to be removed which accounts for roughly 17.3% of the total which can be either done against each week or each month or the whole year so if we take 400x52 you get the 20800 as you somehow found correctly which by the way already puts you barely above poverty before taxes 🤣🤣🤣🤣 17.3% of 20800 is about 3500 so 17,300 is there actual take home pay

[JacobJordan]

However all of this pales in comparison to the absurd mistake you made from your first comment and refuse to accept or acknowledge and that is minimum wage and minimum livable wage are not the same. The same way a livable wage and minimum wage are not the same. Your inability to realize accept and understand those differences is what has lead to you making so many mathematical errors while thinking you are correct. The minimum livable wage is a term that was used very briefly to describe the amount 1 person needed to live (not to be confused with survive) and that number was based on the average costs of things. I don't fault for your ignorance. I do however fault for your refusal to learn and grow.

[WindAtMyBack]

You are in WAY over your head. Take it to your local university math department and ask.

Or start a new question here on GaG and ask.

Don't believe a math geek.
Don't believe someone who did this stuff
www.stolaf.edu/.../EquationsTemplate.pdf

Don't believe someone who had an opportunity to go to MIT as a math major.
Don't believe the person who tied the person who was first in the state in a math competition.

Forget all of that. Just take it to your your local university and ask. But I suppose you won't believe them either.

A lot of people are bad at math. You are one of those people but I am not.

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack you are correct you aren't bad at math. I have literally never met someone more horrible at math. You manage to make people who can't add single digit numbers look good at math. There is not a single person on this comment that agrees with your approach that should be your first sign you have been wrong from the get go mate. The fact you refuse to accept it shows you have an ego because you THINK you know something. But in reality you don't. Because you aren't even arguing the point you are arguing something that I said was not part of it "Not to be confused with the minimum wage". Have already brought it up once so I guess I'll bring it up again since you still don't get it. Your inability to understand why the average is used when it comes to calculating the minimum livable wage. And the fact you completely ignored the fact that 68%+ of Americans can't even afford a month's worth of costs showcases how little you know on this subject. I even linked the source for that. So not was your claim wrong by an unbelievable scale. Your entire premise is false and was disproven with a 30 second Google search. If 68% of Americans can not afford a months cost at there various wages then at no point would 10/hr be doable 🤣🤣🤣🤣 just give up you are wrong and that is fine. You made a mistake. You made assumptions. You thought you could prove yourself right but you picked the wrong person because you don't know nearly enough about this subject. So while you tried you have failed.

[WindAtMyBack]

Please don't vote. You don't understand things well enough vote.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll quickly mention the $10 math. Go find an online calculator and do it yourself. Some of them let you input the hourly pay. Punch in 10 and see what it tells you for monthly take home pay. They will ask about additional deductions such as IRA, etc. That will be zero. State and city tax will also be zero for me.

Now the "the apx minimum livable wage" part.

The livable minimum wage is the very definition of the poverty level. It's the minimum amount you NEED to live. The official poverty level in the US is $15,060 for a single person. Yes, it uses some kind of average, but not the average you mentioned. You were trying to average what people actually spend, not what they NEED to spend.

Which brings up the 68% thing. Did you read and understand that article that you linked? It basically agrees with me. The average of what people actually spend is not what they NEED to spend. The reason they live paycheck to paycheck is because they suck at saving. It's not because they don't make enough money. They just suck at saving. That's the entire gist of the article.

It clearly distinguishes between fixed expenses and discretionary expenses. Discretionary expenses by definition mean stuff you spend money on, but don't need. That is why you can't use an average of what people spend to calculate "the apx minimum livable wage".

That's what this entire argument has been about. The MINIMUM needed to live. And the government agrees with me because that's how they set the poverty level.

[JacobJordan]

@WindAtMyBack the levels you are going to in your desperation to be right tells me you feeling like you are right is more important than actually being right even over the suffering of Americans. So i'll no longer be wasting my time with this conversation. You are too stupid to realize you are wrong and I refuse to continue to lose brain cells on a point you don't even have the iq for. Good day enjoy the delusion have the life you think you have.

[BCA6010]

I assume he means 32 hours but paying the same as it would've been for 40 hours, with overtime kicking in sooner as a result.

The effect would be basically the same as a massive minimum wage increase, just coming at it from the other direction. Like most of these idiotic proposals, it never actually benefits workers much if at all, the costs get pushed to the consumer (and by extension the workers again), and it only serves to empower the bigger companies as they suck it up, and changes to policy cripple the smaller competition.

To be clear, I'd love a 32-hour work week, but I've worked in the office long enough to see the numbers and know exactly how these sorts of changes actually pan out.

[sage2021]

I think you're the exception.

What about truck 🚛 driver's that work up to 46-16 hours a day?

What about union workers that already have their own set of rules.

If you had mentioned the 32 hour work week would have to pay 40 hours as they said on Fox news today, you may have gotten different opinions. Ask Bernie how that would benefit employers.

Thumbs down on this one. My God, another one man show to change all of America 🇺🇸 and Americans.

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we work 24 hours a week and eat ice cream the rest of the time and get paid for working 40 hours?

American's are already too lazy. This will make them even lazier. As it is, most of them want to work at home now. Bunch of whining babies "I don't want to go work in the office, I want to stay home and work in my one piece jammies I got for my birthday".

Buck up people. Get to work. Make America 🇺🇸 Great Again, not worse.

[Avicenna]

france's "35 hour workweek" isn't 35 hours a week every week, it means an average of 35, so 40 some weeks, 30 others, etc.

A 32 hour work week with overtime paid over 32 is going to be problematic where businesses don't want to pay overtime and will limit hours to avoid that, perhaps pushing employees under the 30 hour a week definition of a full-time employee for health insurance purposes. And how many people can really afford to give up 8 hours or more of pay every week when over half of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. That would also mean fewer hours over which to spread insurance premiums.

Lower wage and less-skilled employees would really be hurt by this. Some marginal employees would be less employable and more productive ones could see their hours limited, damaging productivity in the entire economy.

[NathanDavis]

easy to say for politicians... do nothing good in four years, and you still get paid...

[Daniela1982]

And they get a pension of top of that.

[NathanDavis]

@Daniela1982 which they all vote from time to time... to make even bigger

[DizzyDesii]

If they up the pay so that we’re being paid 40 hours worth on 32 hours sure

[exitseven]

That is what Bernie proposes.

[normalice]

Makes sense. Unfortunately far right billionaires will call it socialism and so republican voters will fail to get mad at republican legislators when they block it, thinking hypothetical dudes in women's sports is vastly more important than clawing back 14% of their life from the far right billionaires..

[douride2]

I used to work six days & 70 hrs. a week. These days I down to 5 days 50 hrs. a week. I would love to work 4 -10 hr days. Honestly I don't think I could make ends meet on 32 hrs. a week.

[exitseven]

It is proposed that people get paid their regular salary but only work 4 days.

[douride2]

I don't see how any company could keep going paying forty hrs & only getting 32 hrs of work.

[exitseven]

If the government made anything over 32 hours has to be pai d at time and a half they would gfigure it out just like they did in the 60s when we had a 6 day work weeek.

[Levin]

Yanks love working 80 hours a week and having 14 holidays a year.

Anyway, they won't even do that shit in the UK and we're more liberal than the US.

Wanna know why? Man loves his slavery. And the government and corporations love enslaving you.

Of course, I can do my job in 32 hours. It should be that way. Fuck 5 day weeks.

[Daniela1982]

If they do then companies would have to hire more workers. For instance, the post office delivers 6 day a week. People rely on their mail so they couldn't make a 4 day work week without hiring a bunch more people. A lot of other jobs are the same.

[Phoenix98]

How about no that day less I'm working is a day less I'm making money and I need the income that I make on that 5th day.

Because I don't know about you but that's not a pay cut I'm willing or able to take. Also because of the nature of my work it wouldn't work well with what I do anyway.

So no also Bernie Sanders of all people is the last person in the world you should be taking finical or work related advice from.

[superchan2011]

I'm up for that. Me and my ex used to talk about that and we both agreed that the 5 days of working followed by just 2 days off every week was stupid as you barely get time to have outside of work. Especially considering how fast time goes by on those 2 days off. So I would actually prefer 4 days on, 3 days off.

[Nikki1989]

I would love that if it happened here. I feel like I live at work.

[exitseven]

Yes me too.

[TrueConfection]

Ah yes, he is a socialist and loves to promote Europe's failed policies. The idea is to create shared jobs (more people, less hours). With the mass immigration happening, there won't be enough jobs.

[TrueConfection]

Re: update

Just Like communism, it sounds great on paper and other countries do it. The countries that have "shared jobs" which is what they actually call the32 hour work weeks, supplement incomes with social programs. They are not able to sustain their programs and add more policies all the time. Even welfare recipients get what's called a "13th month" because they need vacation too. It's only fairrrrrrr.

[exitseven]

I think covid demonstrated we do not need to sit in an office for 40 hours to get our work done. Work smart, not hard can be achieved. I can remember when the 6 day work week was common. Unions pushed for a shorter week and the governemtn passed legislation for a 40 hour work week. Somehow we made the transition. This can be done.

[AviatorTom]

My company tried 4-day work weeks, 4x10 hours. Didn't work out too well. The company deals with customers a lot and it was difficult getting people to be at work to support customers every day of the week.

[normalice]

The proposal is 8 hour days. Really, productivity drops off sharply after 6 hours or so. There is a work life balance optimized for productivity and health but owners who do none of the work are ever trying to push for tiny increments of more productivity at the disproportionate cost of employee health. That's what unions are for, normally. Indeed, unions are responsible for the 5 day work week, which made a lot of sense when what we needed to do to keep up with society didn't include the internet.

[strateguy632]

but need money per hour more hours. 32×50 or 40×50.

[BCRanger10]

In other words, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. What else is new?