Increasingly, American political parties are most interested in seizing and wielding power, and I feel like most citizens are occupied with surrendering and assigning that power to their preferred political party. How in the world did we get here? Is there any way we can turn back?
Most of the discussion here is about whether mandating business practice would be a good or a bad business move, but hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate. More and more, I see governments mandating changes that already appear to be underway, but in a way that accrues the praise and rewards to themselves. Most Americans seem to be complicit in this transformation, continually voting greater and greater control and authority away from the people and toward government powers.
Because there's really no reason to question whether government should reasonably limit standard business practices – we've seen, in spades, how business practices are driven entirely and only by concerns of profit while the labor market has very little flexibility that would allow workers to "vote with their feet" and move to "better" employers without outside influence.
Put another way: Of course it's a good thing to force businesses to make work more humane and sustainable for the humans who have to do it.
>but hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate.
That's because you are in the wrong forum. I would think that there are forums out there where unpopular or less common opinions are the norm. Your original point is still true, far less people care less about their freedom, welcome to life.
If the govt does not have the power to dictate working hours, people would did from overwork like in the other countries. May be not software for now, but definitely it is possible with low skilled jobs. This is actually a good thing for the govt to have power over.
PS: This applies to every company, so the playground is fair to compete against.
I agree - a related issue is that if indeed government should be using it's power, then it should be exercised at theost local level possible ie at the city or county level. That way you could see what happens when people have more of a choice about whether to live under those rules or not, before applying it in a way that is harder to avoid. Meaning it is easy to move cities or counties (in the US), harder to move state, almost impossible to change countries for most people's.
If it really is good for companies, then more will move there. If not, they will move out - better to do the experiment on a small scale first!
But the aim of a lot of federal or state level proposed legislation is so that people can't escape nirvana...
> hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate.
That's because it's been discussed and the current status quo is the result. Check out the history of the labor movement.
> The nature and power of organized labor is the outcome of historical tensions among counter-acting forces involving workplace rights, wages, working hours, political expression, labor laws, and other working conditions.
> More and more, I see governments mandating changes that already appear to be underway, but in a way that accrues the praise and rewards to themselves.
That's pretty much the definition of "politician", eh?
> Most Americans seem to be complicit in this transformation,
What transformation?
> continually voting greater and greater control and authority away from the people and toward government powers.
Without concrete examples it's difficult to say anything useful.
The US government doesn't do nearly enough to ensure the welfare of workers. If not being treated like shit by your employer bothers you have plenty of options.
Government power isn't the only power. Workers cheer government regulation as one of their only leverages against employer power (or the power of capital).
> Most of the discussion here is about whether mandating business practice would be a good or a bad business move, but hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate.
Isn't the Government already limiting the workweek to 40h?
The authority isn't with people right now, it is with capital and being wielded against the people.
The only mechanism I'm aware of to change that is government and it needs more power to do so. Government is elected and democratic. Capital is neither.
I agree with your comment, but it has nothing to do with Americans.
Your comments sounds very much like an American with limited experience outside of the US. The scary part is that especially post pandemic, this is a very global phenomenon.
I need more free time from my work responsibilities so I can think about this very scary question with the gravitas it deserves. Can you give me a day off?
What we need is more enforcement of existing labor laws. A 40-hour work week with teeth. No "unpaid overtime". No "time shaving". Out of hours phone calls count as work time, with a minimum time for a call. (3 hours in the movie industry).
Serious question, and maybe this is just based on the people I've met: I've been hearing lots of business owners complaining about California's labor laws getting increasingly hostile which leads companies to relocate or move as many resources they can outside of CA, much like Tesla did. Does anyone else share that sentiment?
I personally think that this is well-intentioned but has consequences that need to be thought out before it becomes law.
> I've been hearing lots of business owners complaining about California's labor laws getting increasingly hostile which leads companies to relocate or move as many resources they can outside of CA
I’m almost 50, and I’ve been hearing and reading lots of this my whole life.
But somehow California’s economy keeps doing well, even without being one of the places that are winning the battle to attract the firms that are optimizing for maximally emoployee-hostile labor laws.
I feel like these trends are waves and we are currently in the down trend. I think we’ll see a bigger uptrend once the economy stabilizes again. We are in a multi prong proxy battle between energy sources and work/life shift. Once people figure out this change I’m sure things will get better as they did for other cities like nyc. Things were really awful back in the day and got better, then got worse, then got better again.
Also, companies might move their headquarters to Texas or whatever but people deep down (workers and probably also the company owners) prefer the lifestyle and experiences that California offers. California coast cities are amazingly beautiful and offer diverse range of activities outdoors and venue wise, and no massive McMansion in 100 degree Texas heat where you have AC blasting and Have to drive eight lane highways everywhere will ever replace the fact you can just hop on your bicycle and ride five min to the beach. I’m just going off anecdote from friends here.
I have an extremely close friend, who is at the C-Level, that just shocked me with news of moving to Boulder, Colorado due to the hostile California laws. I haven't gone in detail with him about what laws/ordinances are specifically having him move there, but yeah...
I don't necessarily share the sentiment, but I am curious to hear the case for the consequences. California is basically its own economy: the state can make its own rules, so from my perspective, the state has more power to set the rules. Other states, at best, can market themselves as "not California"-- something to run from, but not necessarily something to run to.
I’ve said this many times before but keep in mind that people were strongly opposed to the 40hr workweek and it ultimately led to higher productivity. Less illness and injury, primarily.
Not sure there is causation there. A lot of factors contributed to the decrease in illness and injury, including the jobs themselves, a lot of the dangerous ones either got outsourced or died out.
This bill affects only hourly workers, which means that Walmarts and other companies will just cut their work week and pay employees less. They are not going to pay them overtime if they work more. And poor people will need to find an extra job to keep up with bills.
The only poeple who might benefit are hourly gov employees - but that depends on budget constrains.
Instead of all these regulations, why not institute basic income. If every adult was given $2000 ( or whatever figure we come up with ) you wouldn't have to create so many laws. Minimum wage, work hours, retirement, diversity, etc laws would be unnecessary because it would be difficult to exploit people whose needs are met. Why pass hundreds of laws when you can pass 1 that solves all the problem?
And if your goal is a population that pays its way and has relatively generous working conditions and less unequal income distributions, the hyper regulated Europe looks a whole lot better than, say, Saudi Arabia where citizens can live comfortable, unproductive lives topped up by monthly payments, discrimination is rife and an underclass of non-citizens do most of the work for very little money, often in truly awful conditions.
basic income definitely doesn't mean they can deregulate everything else. it greatly lessens the leverage these businesses have over workers but the leverage doesn't go away entirely. also basic income doesn't solve every problem.
Because a UBI is the wrong solution for this problem. Reducing the work week should be done when productivity grows faster than the economy and a UBI does not care whether that is true or not.
As with the bill that Rep Takano introduced in Congress, I feel like the media are not discussing this in at all a reasonable way. It is _not_ a bill to shorten the workweek. It's a bill to change the line at which employers pay overtime ... to workers who would get overtime.
In California, for employers of the size mentioned here, workers become exempt at around ~$62k/yr. The BLS has stats for California which annoyingly give the median hourly wage, and the average annual comp (~$65.5k), but not the median annual comp. But certainly large fraction of workers are above the 'exempt' line, possibly more than half.
Add to that a lot of workers are:
- working for employers smaller than 500 staff in CA
- some form of contractor
- working multiple jobs (perhaps less now than a few years ago)
What's the proportion of workers who would be impacted by this?
And how many workers are not yet exempt, but are close enough to the exempt line that employers will be better off giving them a raise to an exempt salary and then demanding more hours per week?
My regular workweek is 35h (unionizing helps) and if it would be possible to have working IT processes and reduce some managment overhead, i could be productive the level in 30h (and actually i am).
This grinds my gears. I'm a part time at my office (govt contractor), and do more work in 20 hours than some others on my team do in 40. Restrictions on firing underperformers put us in the position of "needing" 40 hours in the workweek.
> Practically speaking, large employers would be required to compensate employees the same amount of pay for fewer hours worked.
Not sure that's true, unless the bill also mandates that employers continue paying the same amount to salaried employees. I assume what'll happen instead is that salaries go down to compensate, and wage employees get fewer hours. Personally, I'd be okay with that, but many people wouldn't want to take that hit.
Worth noting that this article is written by Fisher Phillips, a law firm that, according to Wikipedia, represents management exclusively, so they are not an unbiased source.
Not sure what the current work week is (assuming 40?).
Does anyone actually "work" close to that amount? I've got mine down to about 8 hours with an additional 8 of meetings where i sit on mute and contribute nothing.
I really hope this passes, just so we can see how stupid defining these things in legislature. This should be decided by employers, not politicians. If employers have too much power then you have a monopoly problem and you should do something about it, not rake small businesses over the coals.
I would love a 4 day work week, but only if it meant my job is secure. This is the worst way to go about it.
This is the German wikipedia entry on the conflicts that trade unions and employers' associations in Germany have fought over the reduction of weekly working hours since the late 1970s.
You can already have this as a salaried worker if you negotiate well when you get a new job, and I highly recommend it. Most people barely work on Friday anyway.
I've worked for 6 different employers in my life, Ive also employed people.
100% of my experience is that its rare for someone to ping me out of work hours, and if they do, I completely understand that its an emergency. Since I also care about the company's well being, (that's where I get my paycheck from), Im happy to help.
In 20 years as an employee or employer this has happened maybe 5 times.
I don't know where people are working that this is even an issue, but if at all possible consider switching jobs because youre working with sociopaths.
32 is too low, employers are going to leave California even more if this is approved.
[+] [-] hollasch|3 years ago|reply
Most of the discussion here is about whether mandating business practice would be a good or a bad business move, but hardly anyone is questioning whether this is a good or legitimate role for those in government to decree and mandate. More and more, I see governments mandating changes that already appear to be underway, but in a way that accrues the praise and rewards to themselves. Most Americans seem to be complicit in this transformation, continually voting greater and greater control and authority away from the people and toward government powers.
[+] [-] pandemicsoul|3 years ago|reply
Put another way: Of course it's a good thing to force businesses to make work more humane and sustainable for the humans who have to do it.
[+] [-] monocasa|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dennis_jeeves1|3 years ago|reply
That's because you are in the wrong forum. I would think that there are forums out there where unpopular or less common opinions are the norm. Your original point is still true, far less people care less about their freedom, welcome to life.
[+] [-] skd23423|3 years ago|reply
PS: This applies to every company, so the playground is fair to compete against.
[+] [-] nostromo95|3 years ago|reply
The government is the only coordinating mechanism we have to enforce something like this, otherwise everyone is playing the prisoner’s dilemma.
[+] [-] ghufran_syed|3 years ago|reply
If it really is good for companies, then more will move there. If not, they will move out - better to do the experiment on a small scale first!
But the aim of a lot of federal or state level proposed legislation is so that people can't escape nirvana...
[+] [-] carapace|3 years ago|reply
That's because it's been discussed and the current status quo is the result. Check out the history of the labor movement.
> The nature and power of organized labor is the outcome of historical tensions among counter-acting forces involving workplace rights, wages, working hours, political expression, labor laws, and other working conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_St...
> More and more, I see governments mandating changes that already appear to be underway, but in a way that accrues the praise and rewards to themselves.
That's pretty much the definition of "politician", eh?
> Most Americans seem to be complicit in this transformation,
What transformation?
> continually voting greater and greater control and authority away from the people and toward government powers.
Without concrete examples it's difficult to say anything useful.
[+] [-] luckydata|3 years ago|reply
The US government doesn't do nearly enough to ensure the welfare of workers. If not being treated like shit by your employer bothers you have plenty of options.
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Vladimof|3 years ago|reply
Isn't the Government already limiting the workweek to 40h?
[+] [-] malermeister|3 years ago|reply
The only mechanism I'm aware of to change that is government and it needs more power to do so. Government is elected and democratic. Capital is neither.
[+] [-] qeternity|3 years ago|reply
Your comments sounds very much like an American with limited experience outside of the US. The scary part is that especially post pandemic, this is a very global phenomenon.
Source: American expat
[+] [-] vmception|3 years ago|reply
No, most of us are independent and lie to our friends for employment and sex
[+] [-] koof|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acwan93|3 years ago|reply
I personally think that this is well-intentioned but has consequences that need to be thought out before it becomes law.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|3 years ago|reply
I’m almost 50, and I’ve been hearing and reading lots of this my whole life.
But somehow California’s economy keeps doing well, even without being one of the places that are winning the battle to attract the firms that are optimizing for maximally emoployee-hostile labor laws.
[+] [-] me_me_mu_mu|3 years ago|reply
Also, companies might move their headquarters to Texas or whatever but people deep down (workers and probably also the company owners) prefer the lifestyle and experiences that California offers. California coast cities are amazingly beautiful and offer diverse range of activities outdoors and venue wise, and no massive McMansion in 100 degree Texas heat where you have AC blasting and Have to drive eight lane highways everywhere will ever replace the fact you can just hop on your bicycle and ride five min to the beach. I’m just going off anecdote from friends here.
[+] [-] _boffin_|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thurn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 88913527|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peyton|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdubs|3 years ago|reply
Source: The Rise and Fall of American Growth.
[+] [-] rafale|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlogan|3 years ago|reply
The only poeple who might benefit are hourly gov employees - but that depends on budget constrains.
[+] [-] qiskit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrei_says_|3 years ago|reply
Apart from that I agree - UBI is the simplest, cheapest way to lift the population out of poverty.
The outcomes are fantastic - I recommend Rutger Bregman’s book on it.
[+] [-] notahacker|3 years ago|reply
And if your goal is a population that pays its way and has relatively generous working conditions and less unequal income distributions, the hyper regulated Europe looks a whole lot better than, say, Saudi Arabia where citizens can live comfortable, unproductive lives topped up by monthly payments, discrimination is rife and an underclass of non-citizens do most of the work for very little money, often in truly awful conditions.
[+] [-] risho|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imtringued|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abeppu|3 years ago|reply
In California, for employers of the size mentioned here, workers become exempt at around ~$62k/yr. The BLS has stats for California which annoyingly give the median hourly wage, and the average annual comp (~$65.5k), but not the median annual comp. But certainly large fraction of workers are above the 'exempt' line, possibly more than half.
Add to that a lot of workers are:
- working for employers smaller than 500 staff in CA
- some form of contractor
- working multiple jobs (perhaps less now than a few years ago)
What's the proportion of workers who would be impacted by this?
And how many workers are not yet exempt, but are close enough to the exempt line that employers will be better off giving them a raise to an exempt salary and then demanding more hours per week?
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/labor/wage-and-hour/salary-laws... https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes_ca.htm#00-0000
[+] [-] ng55QPSK|3 years ago|reply
Shorter workweeks makes people focus.
[+] [-] mrfusion|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kleiba|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dizzant|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chollida1|3 years ago|reply
Would everyone take a 20% pay cut? Would people try to keep the same pay for fewer hours.
[+] [-] karaterobot|3 years ago|reply
Not sure that's true, unless the bill also mandates that employers continue paying the same amount to salaried employees. I assume what'll happen instead is that salaries go down to compensate, and wage employees get fewer hours. Personally, I'd be okay with that, but many people wouldn't want to take that hit.
Worth noting that this article is written by Fisher Phillips, a law firm that, according to Wikipedia, represents management exclusively, so they are not an unbiased source.
[+] [-] swarnie|3 years ago|reply
Does anyone actually "work" close to that amount? I've got mine down to about 8 hours with an additional 8 of meetings where i sit on mute and contribute nothing.
[+] [-] exabrial|3 years ago|reply
I would love a 4 day work week, but only if it meant my job is secure. This is the worst way to go about it.
[+] [-] kleiba|3 years ago|reply
https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Auseinanderse...
This is the German wikipedia entry on the conflicts that trade unions and employers' associations in Germany have fought over the reduction of weekly working hours since the late 1970s.
[+] [-] mbgerring|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xivzgrev|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skd23423|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayski|3 years ago|reply
100% of my experience is that its rare for someone to ping me out of work hours, and if they do, I completely understand that its an emergency. Since I also care about the company's well being, (that's where I get my paycheck from), Im happy to help.
In 20 years as an employee or employer this has happened maybe 5 times.
I don't know where people are working that this is even an issue, but if at all possible consider switching jobs because youre working with sociopaths.
32 is too low, employers are going to leave California even more if this is approved.
[+] [-] rdtwo|3 years ago|reply