As part of his Labor Day message to workers in the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday re-upped his call for the establishment of a 20% cut to the workweek with no loss in pay—an idea he said is “not radical” given the enormous productivity gains over recent decades that have resulted in massive profits for corporations but scraps for employees and the working class.
“It’s time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay,” Sanders wrote in a Guardian op-ed as he cited a 480% increase in worker productivity since the 40-hour workweek was first established in 1940.
“It’s time,” he continued, “that working families were able to take advantage of the increased productivity that new technologies provide so that they can enjoy more leisure time, family time, educational and cultural opportunities—and less stress.”
You’re getting down voted for expressing legitimate concerns, and nobody is giving reasons why they disagree with you. I thought we left this kind of interaction behind with reddit.
Anyways, any major shift will have downsides, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t viable in the long term.
They’re using a lot of the same arguments the right uses to attack minimum wage and it’s generally untrue.
In places minimum wage has gone up, we haven’t seen staggering unemployment or inflation compared to similar places without minimum wage changes.
Going to a 32 hour work week should spur the job market if employers want the same number of work hours anyway. And more money and free time for the 90% is good for economic growth as we’re the ones who spend money rather than hoarding it.
So, I suspect the reason most people aren’t bothering to argue is that this same conversation has played out so many times for so many of us that we can’t be bothered with tited talking points being rehashed.
That’s a fair point, people would be making the same amount of money anyway and have more room to spend it. It would also decrease the likelihood of overtime due to penalty rates, and potentially increase the job slots as more people would need to work to fill the lost time for some jobs.
I suppose like anything, the best way to do it is gradually.
I have the same kind of reaction, just in the opposite direction.
I’m fine with campaigning for higher salaries, I’m fine with campaigning for shorter work week, but I’m allergic to the combination of both, because it’s usually accompanied by claims that the productivity won’t go down as a result, which is simply delusional and reeks of populism.
Anecdotal evidence: I work in software. We get more work done after time off, and much less work done near the end of a 5day work week, our data shows.
I’m curious how that applies to different fields.
Time is not directly proportional to productivity.
My job, I notice I’m often somewhat off-flow after a vacation or an unexpected day off. But I also drop off significantly after six hours. RN I do work 32 hrs: 3x 6-hr days and 2x 7-hour days, more or less.
I’m an SWE too, and my anecdote is that I certainly can’t do work in 4 days what I’m currently doing in 5 days.
My point wasn’t that 4 days outputs more work than 5 It was that the average output per day decreases with a longer work week, though one or two people we work with manage to be pretty consistent.
Also I think that 4 days of productivity is enough.
Our most effective co workers have had special work hours and agreements. Some worked 4 days on 3 days off, some work 3 hours less a day. They are the ones who consistently pushed out good stuff, were the least distracted, and had the space to occasionally work extra if they felt like it. The only reason they could do that was because they didn’t rely on the 5 day work week to keep themselves afloat.
I wish I could be in that boat but unfortunately my wage means I have to work all 5 days to support myself and family comfortably.
Good, but many do claim exactly this to support the “32 hours with no loss in pay”.
I can believe that, but the causation is often the opposite - they are the most effective, thus they have the biggest leverage to negotiate better conditions for themselves. At least that’s what I’ve seen.
There’s been studies showing shorter work weeks produce more. People work better when they’re less stressed/happier/less tired.
Sorry if that reeks of populism. I think you’re point of view reeks of authoritarianism tbh.
Because science shows less is more, when it comes to work and school. The only reason to continue the 40 hour work week is so capitalists can keep workers in their place.
And that’s not right.
I have looked up some of those studies in the past and they measured productivity by the company revenue which seems incredibly flawed.
The studies were limited to office workers too. There’s no way a truck driver can cover the same distance 25% faster.
I’ll have to read those studies more closely. And I hear you on the truck driver argument. That said, I’m sure less stressed/less tired truck drivers cause a lot fewer accidents. Which may have an impact on insurance premiums for companies that are in that business.
I guess my point is economic impact can be measured in various ways and it’s possible that everyone working less (and the 10% paying the other 90% of us a fair wage), will be a net benefit for society and the health of the individuals in society, and thus, a net benefit for the economy.
As a non-office worker (worked in food service my whole life), I’ve seen the direct effects on mental and physical health caused by being overworked and under paid. And those negative effects certainly spill over into the quality of service, as well as the potential for a accidents at work.
I know that’s anecdotal, but I think it also is a very reasonable observation that passes the common sense test anyway.
Settings => Show scores => disable ftw :)