• drcabbage@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 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.