You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

SuiXi3D ,
SuiXi3D avatar

I truly don’t see how doing so would adversely affect any company. If they need the additional labor an extra eight hours can provide, they can hire someone else at 32 hours/week to cover it with an overlapping schedule. If the business is smaller, they can pay overtime.

Anecdotally, my own job doesn’t require me to work eight hours every day. Shit, I’m lucky to do four hours of actual work in a day. The amount of work ebbs and flows, but I find myself more often than not watching YouTube on my work computer simply because there’s literally no more work for the day.

deft ,

Oof this screams out of touch though you see that right?

I'm a chef I work a lot. 11 hour shifts no break is common. 32 hour work week means I'm assured 8 hours OT + my already typical 2 hours OT every week.

For someone like me this is a huge pay bump or they hire someone and I get more time off. Either way is a win.

SuiXi3D ,
SuiXi3D avatar

11 hour shifts no break is common.

But they shouldn’t be and that’s the point.

deft ,

And so cutting to 32 hours a week helps. I didn't make this standard it just goes this way because of the career.

Truckers, Doctors, Nurses all deal with similar schedule issues and it is usually because we can't just hand out workload over you have to know what is going on, nobody can just walk in and take over.

eveninghere ,

Tbf it's expensive to find a new hire. At least, that's the logic I rely on when arguing not to fire employees frequently.

SuiXi3D ,
SuiXi3D avatar

Oh no! A company spending money on anything but the CEO’s next yacht is such an awful idea!

eveninghere ,

Why not fix two problems? I don't expect a fair answer though.