30 Hour Work Week

[MODU]

I would love to get paid for more hours than I actually work.  However, it would never be able to be implemented within the US without completely disrupting our economy.  I work about 50 or so hours a week for 40 hours of pay.  Part of it is by choice (since I commute to work with others) and part of it is because of necessity.  Do I get upset that I don't get paid for those additional 10 hours?  Not really.  I'm sure that during the day between me stopping in the halls to talk non-business related topics with people, taking longer lunches, and checking this site from time to time, I'm burning up at least 4 hours a week for personal use.

Additionally, when I sailed and worked with Union personnel, even with the options of overtime available for anyone willing to work an additional hour or two after their watches, I've learned what the "set hours" concept does to people - makes them lazy.  Fortunately, I made a lot of money doing the jobs the others refused to do since they already had their time in for the day.  Of course, I can't begin to express how annoyed I was hearing "Hey, I'm on my coffee break" each time something suddenly popped up which I needed an additional set of hands real quick and asked for help.  

So, in short, it's a bad idea.  I wouldn't mind if more companies went to a flex-time system, so if you work four 10-hour days, you can get an additional day off, however the company would need to make sure there was adequate coverage in all positions on a regular basis to ensure that a complete shutdown on Fridays don't occur (for example).

[MODU]

And after all I am not advocating anything drastic, just a continual, gradual improvement in the human condition.. so that if now we have a 30 hour work week, in a generation it will be 20, and in another one or two it will be 10, etc.  Otherwise all of society's productivity goes to increasing the leisure of the owning class.  Since none of them work anyway, already, it simply means that any increase in productivity is used up in excess, such as enormous mansions, servants, perhaps eventually hunting poors for sport - that sort of thing.  Really I find it hard to believe that any worker is stupid and masochistic enough not to want to work week to be gradually reduced.

Wow, so in like 90 years, no one will be working?  40 -> 30 -> 20 -> 10 -> 0??? 

40 hours a week is a fairly good balanced model to work off . . . a standard which both the employers and the employees can agree with.  If you want us to switch down to 30 hours a week, then the companies should only pay us for 30 hours of work, meaning the added expense on the company to hire more people to meet the needs of the company.  While this might sound utopian, it actually puts a greater burden on the employees financially, forcing them to pick up a secondary job to recover their lost income since the prices of goods will not drop 25%, taking people back up to 40 hours a week (if not more) in order to break even.

[MODU]

Certainly not!  An employee would be a fool to agree to continuing such a system, and not demanding some progress or improvement in his life. 

hahaha . . . coming from the moocher.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I have heard of productivity . . . something which depends on people putting the time in at work in order to produce.  Technological advances which allow us to be more productive today didn't come from someone only putting in 30 hours a week.  Most of the computer hardware designers and software developers during the 80s and 90s were putting in over 60 hours a week to develope what you use today, for example.  And, since the computer made us more productive, duplicate jobs were eliminated, requiring the employee to do more (and at a higher pay scale).  

And, by the way, unions tend to limit productivity and innovation, not bolster it.  You do have a unique view of the business world, moocher.  

[MODU]

I am not 'proposing' anything, Dibble.  I'm merely suggesting that workers demand a share of the productivity growth of the last 60 years, during which they got no increase in their leisure time.  

"Leisure time" is dictated by the employee by the job they choose and the number of hours they wish to work (no one is telling them to get a 40 hour a day job).  They are getting their fair share of the productivity growth by receiving higher wages and challenging jobs.  

Yes, I have heard of productivity . . . something which depends on people putting the time in at work in order to produce.

No, no, no, modu, you poor fellow, the definition of productivity is production per hour worked.  If it increases, it means that you produce more per hour.  Just working more increases production, but not productivity.  

You can only produce so much in an hour.  You cannot cram 20 hours of work into 10 hours, just as I cannot cram 60 hours of work into 40.  You especially can't do that in industry without adding unnecessary safety risks to the employees and the consumers.  You are thinking too idealisticly and ignoring reality.

[MODU]

"Leisure time" is dictated by the employee by the job they choose and the number of hours they wish to work (no one is telling them to get a 40 hour a day job).  They are getting their fair share of the productivity growth by receiving higher wages and challenging jobs.

They must work in order to survive, MODU.. these are working class persons we are discussing, with no choices, options, or capital. 

They still have the choice. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can only produce so much in an hour.  You cannot cram 20 hours of work into 10 hours,[/quote]

Yes, you can, MODU.  That is precisely the point of an increase in productivity.  Investment in equipment and technology leads to cramming 20 hours of work into 10 hours, or perhaps even 1 hour.  For example, a farmer today with modern equipment can do in a day what it took hundreds to do in the distant past... [/quote]

HAHAHA . . . ok son.  Keep living in that fantasy world of yours.  Make sure you tell all the farmers you see that they don't have to work a minimum of 10 hours a day in their fields since there are magical machines out there which they can afford to buy to take care of all the work for them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm being realistic and you are entirely misunderstanding economics, technology, and productivity.
[/quote]

You go teach your students English, and tell them that they only need to spend an hour a week working to learn it.  See how long it takes.  *laughs*  You're lack of understanding the real world is great.  Keep it up . . . you're making my day, moocher. 

[MODU]

This is still coming from the kid who has really not held a real (lasting) job in his life.  You should come into the corporate world and try to complete a typical 40-hour work load (which is more like 50 hours of work) in a 30-hour week.  I would be more than willing to let you at my desk for a week and see how much you get done.  I'll even give you the first week as hands-on training before letting you fly solo. 

[MODU]

I had a major Opebo today.  I was afraid it wouldn't flush. 

Opie . . . you need to realize . . . coming from us who actually work for a living, your concept of imposing limits on work hours, while somehow magically achieving just as much produtivity (not production, you moron) is not possible, hence the reason why many of us work over 40 hours a week.  Due to all of our economic and technological advances, one person can (in theory) do more work than two . . . which leads to us doing 40+ hours a week and burning through our vacation time like gas through a Hemi each year.  Now, if you want to reverse the trend of the 80s, split everyone's jobs (and salaries) in half, and double the size of the work force, then you might find a way to compress it down to 30 hours a week . . . until companies start laying off people again due to the high overhead rates.

[MODU]

Opie = joke

[MODU]

How am I a 'fanatic', Dibble?  I don't even propose that the heirarchy be upended, just emeliorated slightly.  Do you at least admit that it exists?

"you poors."  "your masters." etc...  You're a joke on this issue son. 

[MODU]

A personal message to Opie from Mr. T:

"You're a fool - that's what's wrong with you."



Don't forget to check out Mr. T's new show starting in October!!!