• Neuromancer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I think each company has to do what’s best for them.

    I mainly work in sales and a four day work week wouldn’t interest me. It’d impact my sales.

    I work 5-6 days a week 2-3 hours per day.

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      When you let “each company do what’s best for them” we get mining companies hiring pinkerton to murder miners. We get Triangle Shirtwaist. We get Bhopal.

      We need the force of law behind things like this, or we get fucked by greed, every single time. You do what’s best for you, but corporations need laws.

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I am not sure how you got murdering people from what I said.

        I don’t want a law pushing four day work weeks. Doesn’t interest me. I’m fine with each company picking the schedule they want to offer.

        • xantoxis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          OK. And what I’m telling you is that without a law, it won’t happen.

          How did I get from here to there? The 5-day work week literally saved lives. Saved peoples’ bodies. Extended lifespans. Gave children back their parents. I don’t think a single labor regulation has ever protected workers as much as the 5-day week.

          The 4-day week would take it further. It’s worth doing, and it will not happen if we let every corporation decide for themselves.

          • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Just playing devil’s advocate here, but doesn’t the article prove that it has happened?

            And now, being a bit more genuine, I think it’s tricky with places where people aren’t salaried. Like people who make most of their money through commissions and bonuses based on sales targets (car salespeople, etc). Also caregiving, where margins are slim because of shitty insurance reimbursements and caregivers get paid based on hourly work

    • Isomar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think the thing is you are already working less than a 4 day week (32 hr … ) your doing 18 at most so I don’t think you really can comment on this one …

      • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Do it for hourly people or give the choice to allow workers to do five. For many jobs it would just mean people working more hours per day to keep up with the volume.

        • Isomar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s the ponit same pay as 40 hr for 32 hr. . Better work/life balanced. I know it will not matter to you as you pick your hrs but there are a ton of people that are not that lucky… if they whant to work 40 nothing is stopping them the company will just have to pay 8hrs of overtime.

          The answer is more workers…

          • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            We already have a worker shortage. So no the answer isn’t more workers.

            My gf is salary and works 50 hours a week. Four days a week means she’s working 12-13 hour days. She doesn’t want that.

          • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Would love to reduce the number of hours worked while retaining same comp. However, I don’t think more workers is a viable solution, because that’d imply companies eating the 20% extra cost. Whether or not they can get it through shareholders and the board aside, fact that the amount of working aged adults are shrinking (due to boomers retiring and lesser children in later generations) makes it much harder to add more head counts. There must be ways to improve efficiency without corporate/shareholder greed, and that’s a tough pill for the world to swallow without very drastic changes (UBI for example).

            • Isomar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              But there it is… if the top took a hiar cut that would cover it. Lower entrance requirements to get the job… means more eligible works… it’s a tuff one yes. Is there enuff workers maybe. But it’s worth a try.

              • chiisana@lemmy.chiisana.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’m stuck in middle management, and have many middle and senior management peers, so I see both sides of the arguments here getting pushed back hard. I cannot begin to imagine the top willing to take a cut, there’s no benefit for them what so ever. Anything lower tries to justify will just be brushed off. On the flip side, I definitely do not want to reduce entrance requirements… bad hires hurts my team’s performance in non linear fashion.

                If meaningful changes were to happen, it would have to be mandated by laws and regulations, but I don’t see a path for those laws and regulations to change without drastic societal changes that would support such.

    • ray@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Good news! Nobody wants to cut your hours. Bernie Sanders’ proposal would cut the standard work week down from 40 hours to 32. Since you already work less than 32 hours per week, this change would have no impact on you.

    • spez_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I agree. The government should not get in the way of companies - no matter what.