Unfortunately that’s a fairly naive take that fails to consider how most people work in the US- hourly employees would be fucked by this.
Retail, service, anyone whose not already working 9-5 office jobs; the reality is that they won’t loose pay, but they will loose hours. And you can bet your ass that companies won’t pay more to make up for it.
From the article…
The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act would also protect workers’ pay and benefits to ensure there’s no loss in pay, according to a press release.
Says nothing about loss in hours.
Remember, when you’re paid hourly, you can lose hours and not lose pay.
Unless the employment contract already has guaranteed hours.
Says nothing about loss in hours.
I’m assuming that’s covered as a part of this…
ensure there’s no loss in pay
I have no idea why you’re being downvoted. How would the government mandate a pay raise across the board? The government only has the federal minimum wage lever to play with. Somehow the law would have to say: all hourly workers must be paid 25% more. Would companies just increase prices by 25%?
Now, I’m all for reducing the work week to 32 hours. I’m tired of spending most of the week working and only having to 2 free days (of which one is usually spent doing home chores). But I’m genuinely curious about how this would be implemented without causing massive inflation.
Raising the minimum wage to account for inflation would give a vast number of people a major raise.
Which has little to do with a 32 hour workweek, and can’t be done on its own even though it really should be done.
Personally the minimum wage should be tied to the cost of living or increased along side CPI or some other useful inflation metric
Simply a one-time jump isn’t going to accomplish all that much in the long run.
Bring it up even to where it was along side inflation, (big jump,) and have an annual little jump baked in each year.
they lose hours but the hourly pay goes up, just like everybody else, no? I haven’t read the bill but I would be surprised if that’s not in there.
Companies already offer part time retail positions, and they are shitty about it. 39.5 hours a week to avoid the full time line.
So in this 32h future they’d just offer 31 hour positions at a lower rate and still yank people around
Edit: I was off on values. Commenter below pointed out 30 is the mark
The Full time Mark is already 30 hours per week measured monthly so not this would not change anything
https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/identifying-full-time-employees
First off, it needs to be noted that the only mechanism to do that on so large a scale is to increase the minimum wage.
Which is how they did it in ‘38 when the work week went to 44, and in ‘40 when it when to what it is today.
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.) and so really all you’ve done, effectively, is put far more people onto minimum wage.
Anyone who was above that mimimim? Gets the shaft.
And people who now are on minimum? Working two jobs to pay for everything (like most people in the bottom quarter are already doing anyhow,) so they don’t really see reduced hours anyway.
It’s well meaning and it’d be nice, but it needs to be done differently. Unions are strong now. Stronger than they have been since I’ve been working. Join a union. Make the change yourself; eventually it’ll get normalized without the above problems. (Also, better wages, healthcare, workplace safety and everything else Unions get you.)(don’t tell my boss’s boss that. He’s still buthurt from negotiating a new contract.)
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.)
News flash, they’re going to be raising prices regardless.
