Is it time to shorten the work week

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I kind of think that as mankind advances our creative nature will be more available to more of us to explore. This would fit well into the shorter work week and would spawn cottage industries as well. As civilization advances I would like to think more of us could rise to a higher level and spend more time creating instead of just assembling.

[John_Mace]

@badger5149

John, it does not ignore anything and no one sugested it would be simple.

You must not have read posts 8 or 22.

Fact is we are producing things faster than ever and continue to get faster. Developing countries are quickly producing more for themselves and us. We are allready becoming aware of the fact that their are limits on natural materials. As developing nations develop the need to conserve will become even more apparent and will likley reach crisis status in many areas. The trend will be toward reduced consumption. How would you propse to keep everyone working in the future?

I don’t propose to keep everyone working.

[DagNation]

How did we get the “standard” 40 hour work week? After a bit of labor-owner scuffling, political will developed, and laws were passed saying that (in California) any time worked beyond 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week get 150% of normal wage (for most types of employment, excluding management and business owners among others), and at some higher number of hours the wage goes up to 200%.

So, given the political will, the max “regular” hours could be changed to 36 or 32 (or whatever) with time and a half starting at that lower number of hours. The hours needed to have a “full time job” for purposes of getting certain benefits can also legally be reduced. Vacation time can accrue per hour worked instead of by some calendar based schedule. Changing the law is the answer to “how?”.

Decoupling health insurance from employment would reduce the cost to employers of this kind of change. For example, I have an uncle who does some high tech work, and regularly works 60 hour weeks (paid hourly). He says his employer requires it because it is cheaper than getting more employees. I think taking health care out of the equation would change the employer’s attitude, and again, the full time number of hours change would not be as costly to them.

A while back in CA we tried an optional variant so workers could elect to do 4-10 hour shifts, but there was some abuse of that by employers, so it went away. There may not be simple legal answers that allow workers flexibility in this regard, even though a significant number of people would prefer 4-10 hour days. I know a lot of hospital workers who do 3-12 hour shifts, with (8 hours3 days) 24 hours at regular time, and (4 hours3 days) 12 hours at 150%, giving them the same as 42 regular hours of pay. The hospitals prefer this schedule because it brings some efficiencies with it, so it works out for some people.

[AdamF]

@badger5149

The 40 hour standard work week was applied for a reson, not sure what. If they were to say the standard work week would be 36 hours I doubt many would give it much thought 10 years from now. Comapanies would be free to give their employees as many hours as they wanted just as they do now. I am just suggesting changing the “standard work week”. At any rate something like this would not take hold overnight.

Personally, I think that doing away with a “standard work week” is a lot more likely, at least in North America. There seems to be a general movement away from cookie cutter 8-5 jobs and toward a more personalized approach. This was quite correctly perceived when setting a minimum hourly wage (I live in Canada) rather than minimum weekly/annual wage. I think that the only sensible legislated limit is on how long you can work in one shot. I know that 12 hour shifts are fairly common in medical professions. Personally, I would be worried to be operated on by a surgeon who has already worked for 11 hours.