Talk Elections

Sponsor: Harry S Truman, Speaker

The member from North Dakota has the floor.

As it says on the tin, really —this bill would define full-time work in Frémont as thirty-two hours a week, require employers to pay overtime for work over thirty-two hours, and adjust the minimum wage formula accordingly. Not only will this provide much-needed respite to an overworked and underpaid working class, it will create new opportunities for employment in industries that need the manpower while appropriately adjusting to modern labor needs in others where automatization plays an increased role.

Wouldn't this just result in employers cutting everyone's hours to 32, resulting in a pay cut for most Atlasians?

32 hours is a bit extreme for me. Even France is still on 35. And this isn't going to do anything to stop the move towards part-time work, which is what is actually hurting the working class.
And a 32 hour working week does nothing for the poor with multiple part-time jobs.

§3 is specifically designed to prevent this for workers earning the minimum wage. For everyone else, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2018, the average Atlasian worked 34.4 hours in a typical week. (Source (https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-the-average-hours-per-week-worked-in-the-us-2060631)) The real effect of this bill will be to increase wages for hourly employees who work more than 32 hours a week, as employers will likely find it more economical to pay slightly more in overtime than to hire new employees to do a few hours' work each week.

This is, indeed, a significant problem: one I would be happy to work with the honorable member (and anyone else interested) in addressing by a separate bill, or an amendment to this one. My first instinct is that the best way to attack companies deliberately keeping their employees part-time would be through the corporate tax code, though I'm not sure exactly how. A more radical solution, I suppose would be to abolish part-time work entirely.

Or just institute a higher wage per hour for part-time work than full time work for medium and large companies. That's a lot simpler without entering the bounds of radical thought.

As we've had no more debate, I move for a vote.

That's factually untrue, and is not how business is operated in larger companies. Larger companies typically do everything possible to avoid paying overtime, because it isn't more economical to pay that one person to work longer. How it actually ends up working out is that you have significantly fewer full time employees, and more part time employees doing the same job, but working less hours.

Many larger companies have moved to have fewer fulltime managers and leads, and a bunch of part time associates working 25 hours or less a week because at the end of the day, it costs them less to do so, and no one gets overtime pay. It costs too much for the company to pay overtime to that one person, and that one person is much more likely to get reprimanded for going over the maximum full time hours, and likely fired if it becomes a regular problem.

While the purpose of this is admirable, it doesn't take into account how it works in the real world.

Come on, support this legislation. We really need it

Signed citizen Laki. Everyone who signs it gets my immediate endorsement for next election. Harry S Truman, I really admire your proposal here. You're a great guy!

It seems the momentum is against this bill, but it has languished on the floor long enough. Regardless of the outcome, I intend to bring legislation to address the concerns raised by ASV and fhtagn in the next parliament.

Members will vote Aye, Nay, or abstain. Voting will last 48 hours or until all members have voted.

---

Aye

Aye

Nay

With two members in favor, one opposed, and one not voting, the resolution carries.