Question: What would be wrong with reducing the 40 hour work week to 36 hours for the next year?

[OmahaBlueDog]

The theory here being that employers would rather hire on additional full or part time help rather than pay overtime. I'm in no way saying that a 10% cut in hours would be pleasant, but I'm just wondering if it could help get some folks off the unemployment rolls?

[Art_from_Ark]

1. For a lot of folks, that would mean a loss of $30-40 per week

or $1500-2000 per year

[OmahaBlueDog]

2. But it might create 1 job for every 10 employees in a company

That's someone who gets nothing now who might work for a year.

[Tempest]

8. You're assuming companies would hire to make it up

The reason for the hours being cut is because of a lack of business and having to cut costs, so where's the incentive to hire?

[OmahaBlueDog]

14. You're right, that would be the assumption

I'd assume that "full time" would be temporarily redefined as 36 hours, and that OT would begin after hour 36. The thought being that employers would hire rather than pay O/T. However, many have suggested they'll just demand more work.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. Maybe, but 10 employees working at $7.50- 10.00/hour

would each lose 1/10 of their pay. And not only that, they most likely would lose whatever benefits they had because they would no longer be considered to be working "full-time". But they would still be required to do the same work, for less pay. Having grown up in what amounted to a lower middle class blue collar neighborhood, I can say that those differences could make or break a lot of family budgets.

[Tempest]

5. It would be a lot more than that for the vast majority of workers

A 36 hour work week would be a 10% cut in pay.

At your estimate, the worker is making less than $25,000 a year.


Here's a real life example: A state worker in my town is getting his hours cut back 10% by the governor starting tomorrow. He's losing $400 a month, which is a third of his mortgage. He has to make up that money somehow to pay his mortgage.

I'll try to find the article by an economist in California who said to expect a spike in defaults and foreclosures because of the governor's action.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. I used those figures because, judging from newspaper ads,

they seem to approximate the average hourly wage in my home town.

[defendandprotect]

16. Incomes have to remain the same -- or slight variation . . .

[defendandprotect]

17. We've been in a downward spiral for LABOR for the past decades . . .

time to reverse this ---

and time to destroy power based on money ---

and values based on the yardstick of dollar bills --- !!!

[Johnny Noshoes]

23. Well let's see...

I'm now working under a four month 5% pay cut, no overtime, and a hiring freeze. So no I don't think it would work. The cuts and cutbacks would just get progressively worse. So what's the answer? Damned if I know but democratic socialism - which I've always liked the idea of - is looking better every day.

[Juche]

3. I read in France that employers just increased productivity rather than increased hiring

I have no idea how true it is, but the workweek was changed from 39 hours to 35 in France in 2000 to address unemployment. Whether it worked or not (some criticisms say employers in France just increased productivity and quotas instead of hiring new people), I am not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35-hour_workweek

[corruptmewithpower]

4. They tried it in France

Anyone know if it's beneficial there?

[Historic NY]

6. My county workers lost their paid 30 min. lunch and 2- 15 minutes breaks.

So if thats what you mean then they could reduce. Is it fair? Is it more productive? I think its vindictive but such is life.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

20. That's illegal under Federal labor law.

If you work eight hours straight they MUST give you 2 fifteen minute paid breaks, and give you a lunch break.

[Venceremos]

7. In my state

anything under 40 hours per week qualifies as part time. So the employers do not have to provide even the slightest benefits. They don't even have to give regular breaks as they do for full time employees. They can also make the employee work as many hours a day as they want, as long as the weekly total doesn't exceed 40 hours.

I've worked a part time job and had a decent employer who gave us breaks and other perks. But my son's employer last summer was an ass. Zero benefits and no breaks, regardless of how many hours they'd worked that day.

So at least in my state, there's a lot of potential for abuse, but I guess any paycheck beats starving.

[OmahaBlueDog]

10. FOr the purpose of this question, assume full-time would be redefined as 36 hours for 1 year

..otherwise, I agree, abuse would be rampant.

Of course, employers wil slash benefits anyway.

[Venceremos]

18. Then I think it's a good idea

Again, any paycheck is better than nothing. Plus being employed helps self esteem. My neighbor has been unemployed for months now, and he's starting to drink too much. I think any job would pull him out of the doldrums, although it might not pay all his bills.

[Greyhound]

9. A 25% reduction in the overtime requirement would go a long way toward reducing unemployment and

raising wages, which are requisite to improving the economy.

[OmahaBlueDog]

12. Explain that point further, please.

[Greyhound]

19. Drop the requirement to pay overtime to 30 hours a week and businesses have

a very strong incentive to hire more workers. Unemployment is about 15% - 18% (real numbers, not the federal "elect us" BS) and it would be greatly reduced with this move. Immediately add another $3 an hour to the federal minimum wage and we can get some real movement toward pushing money down to where it will be spent, which in turn, will provide significant economic stimulus.

Of course, there will be some inflationary pressure with this, but I believe that the current dearth of sales in general will counteract most of this. In the end, business will have to return to operating at more realistic (and sustainable) profit margins.

If you want to get really fancy, close all the loopholes and eliminate all incentive to out-source/off-shoring and punish the use of off-shore tax havens and we will have to worry about the economy overheating within a year or two.

But of course, the real downside to this is that the people most hurt in this strategy are the parasites that are above working. They have/are the politicians, so there is a better chance of my winning the lottery than this, or anything like it, happening.

[defendandprotect]

15. Actually, we should go to a 5 hour a day/5 day week ....

Any five days ---

And, just about anyone can work these hours ---

With benefits --- and minimum wage should be near $20 ---

We have to have a living wage based on costs of shelter/health care/food/clothing ---

all necessities of life according to Human Rights Manifesto!

[ColbertWatcher]

21. Some corporations do not provide benefits to employees working less than 40 hours/wk. n/t

[MrSlayer]

22. I'll go for 3-12s at straight time.

36 hours a week wouldn't kill me. I'd have to cut the dinner out once a week. But the extra free time would rule.