this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
1617 points (98.5% liked)

News

22890 readers
4744 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I'm not opposed to a 4 day work week, but I am always curious as to what jobs the studies have looked at to conclude that people with 4 work days instead of 5 do the same amount or more work.

I'm a construction worker. Despite the jokes about standing around, we work hard. I do not think that a 4 day work week would produce better results than a 5 day in my field.

Just for reference I've been doing home rehabilitations for lower income families. There's not a ton of heavy lifting, there's just a lot to do.

Also, a lot of guys in my line of work also work side jobs on their days off.

[–] apocalypticat@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You don't think there's a chance that working 4 days instead of 5 reduces the physical toll to keep you going longer and working better? Wouldn't working 4 days a week reduce your stress, allow you to recover from all that heavy lifting you mentioned, and improve your physical and mental health on the long-run?

Besides, as I understand it, if your company still wants you to work 5 days, you would still have the option. This bill would require them to pay you overtime for that extra day.

[–] Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

I specifically mentioned not much heavy lifting. The most taxing work I've had to do in the past few months was yesterday, lifting a solid core exterior for into place. And the entire second half the day was recovery while I finger painted with wood putty on all the doors and trim.

Regardless of my personal work situation, I can't deny that there would be mental and health benefits for shorter work weeks. I just really don't think that more work would get done in less time, which is what a lot of studies on "office" work seem to say.

[–] drcabbage@lemmy.ml 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

For your line of work, maybe not. But who cares? They can hire more employees or pay them overtime.

We aren't machines. What's the point of life if all we ever do is work? Are we working to live, or living to work? A 32 hour work week makes it a 4/3 day split instead of a 5/2 day split. Seems a lot more balanced if you ask me.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah, this construction worker guy doesn't get it. There were plenty of people who said a 40-hour work week was not a good idea. People were used to working 6 or 6.5 days per week.

As a construction worker, it shouldn't matter to you how quickly the work gets done. Why do you care? If you're doing it for yourself, then work as much as you want. This limitation is just on how many hours you work before overtime pay.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

They can hire more employees

I'm much in favor of this, but it requires the regulated overhead of an employee to be reduced.

Instead of employer insurance, public health service.

Unemployment insurance should be reworked, because that also penalizes per-employee (extremely low wage caps, that start from fresh per person).

Probably various other taxes similar to unemployment insurance.

Generally speaking, there should be no difference to hire an employee for 12 hours versus 32 versus 40 hours. Currently a lot of positions get their hours capped to avoid incurring the overhead of a 'full time' employee.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Ultimately speaking, it's not really about that anyways. It's about shrinking the ever growing wage gap.

The productivity angle is interesting but just a justification that even the capital has to either agree with or admit it's about control, not efficiency.

[–] Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 months ago

My base comment was more about the 32 hour work week studies which usually coincide with bills of this nature, showing improved productivity and so the lobbyists overlords had nothing to worry about from the change.

As much as I enjoy my work, making end meet isn't ever a simple task.

[–] diannetea@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

I think something people are missing when thinking less work overall will happen is that this gives opportunities for new job openings for at least part time (if not just more full time position) people to fill in the gaps, or the people already working will just get paid much better. Both are wins imo

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

It looks like it's about overtime - people getting paid more when they work more than 32 hours.