less work more life, better economy?

[lane912]

if the official work week was shortened to 30 hrs would that "create" a situation where more people are hired to fill the gaps or will companys just pay more overtime?

[red-beard]

Yes, but, your wage per hour would remain the same, possibly lower. So your yearly pay will go down.

Productivity is a crap shoot. If you run 4 shifts per day at 6 hours per day, there are losses for change over. OTOH, productivity may increase since the workforce should be "fresher".

The labor cost will go up, since the benefits will now be given to more people. Healthcare, retirement, etc, make up a significant portion of labor costs. And it will probably be easier to hit OT, since you only need to exceed 30 hours per week.

Also all of these new people would need to be trained, which is costly.

Finally, are there sufficient people to do this? At my last company, they could not find enough code certified welders in Oklahoma City. They hired lots of guys to do the non-code stuff and then tried to train the some to become code certified. The problem was that not all of the non-code guys had what it takes to become code certified.

A lot of the chronic unemployment in this country is from people who are not able to be retrained to the newer types of jobs. The lower level jobs have been moved to places where they can be done for overall lower costs (Wages/Taxes/Work Rules/Environmental rules).

[GH85Carrera]

Most companies would not pay for 40 hrs if you are only working 30. Can you live on 75% of your current paycheck? So then you go out to find a part time job to fill in the extra and they want you for 20 hrs a week and you end up working 50 hrs a week.

Personally I would prefer to work 4 - 10 hr days and have Friday off.

[Rick Lee]

I have no set workday. My company doesn't care if it takes me 20 hrs. or 70 hrs. per week and the goal doesn't change because I take vacation. I have a monthly revenue goal. As long as I'm pretty close to 100%, my job is safe.

[jwasbury]

Originally Posted by lane912

if the official work week was shortened to 30 hrs would that "create" a situation where more people are hired to fill the gaps or will companys just pay more overtime?

Just ask France...BTDT

[IROC]

Originally Posted by lane912

if the official work week was shortened to 30 hrs would that "create" a situation where more people are hired to fill the gaps or will companys just pay more overtime?

Kellogg's (the cereal company) did this during the Depression. They went to four 6 hour shifts instead of three 8 hour shifts. It didn't cost them any more and it employed more people even though the existing workers made less $/week.

[masraum]

I just start ted a gig where I'm working four 10s, Wed - Sat. If they want OT, then I just work an extra day and still have 2 days off. I like it, and I like having some week days off. I don't have little kids, so the weekend thing isn't an issue for me.

[wdfifteen]

In our society I don't think either those who work or those who don't would go for it. In the US our job is more central to our lives than in other places (Denmark is the one I have direct experience with). Those who want to work would probably take the 30 hrs and get another job too. Those who don't want to work aren't going to be enticed to work a 30 hour week any more than they'd work 40.
There is a segment, not sure how big, that doesn't need a salary as badly as they need affordable health insurance and this might work for them. I think there will be a growing market for 20 and 30 hour weeks among 60 to 70 year olds who need to be in a group health insurance plan.

[Esel Mann]

To be considered full-time for benefits, one must work on average 32 hours or more per week (how many weeks are used for the average escapes me for the moment).

What many companies are already doing, for example retail type companies, is working the bulk of their workforce under 32 hours so that they are considered part-time and thus it is not necessary to provide the benefits offered to full-time.
Not needing to pay out on the benefits side more than outweighs the additional part-time labor cost to cover their day-to-day activities.

So in essence what you suggest, is already being applied to some extent and has been for some time now. Naturally it is not being applied across the board because it is not practical in many cases for the reasons Red Beard pointed out.

Also to be competitive here in the U.S., full-time employment type jobs require that productivity offset the labor costs. To a company it's all about $$$. If they they could get sufficient productivity out of 30 hours for each full-time employee they would as the plant operation savings would be significant. However, that appears to not be the case, hence 40 hours remains the typical workweek. However, because the 40 hour work week has been around for so long, it's become engrained into our work habit. It's not a bad idea every now and then to re-visit it to see if perhaps one could reduce the work week and yet keep overall productivity at the same level!

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Esel Mann

To be considered full-time for benefits, one must work on average 32 hours or more per week (how many weeks are used for the average escapes me for the moment).

THat must vary by state. Here in Ohio it is 25 hrs a week.

[jluetjen]

I subscribe to the belief that "the early bird gets the worm". Either individually, or as a country -- if we produce less than we're capable of -- others will eat our lunch. If the US were to institute a 32 hour work week, the end result will just be that more jobs will move overseas to some country where people aren't afraid to work.

[Esel Mann]

WD,

You would be correct. The lower bound on what is considered full-time (if any), does vary state to state. I hear some states even do not specify such. 32-hours however would be the more typical.

Just when one thought that France was bad with it's work week, outta nowhere comes Ohio

[lane912]

well there would have to be another half to this program-

raising tarifs on inported goods, making it economicly viable to manufacture products here-

repeal NAFTA-

[lane912]

we need to do something that creates favorable conditions to create new jobs making things-
that is the way to remidy the current economic conditions

[Superman]

Shortly after the turn of the 20th century, labor laws were adopted which defined a work week and required overtime, outlawed child labor, instated minimum wages, etc. The employer community predicted the sky wold fall. Instead, we had the Roaring Twenties.

[Seahawk]

We actively seek the 20 - 30 hours a week folks, especially military wives.

We even group folks, 20 hours/20 hours to meet federal regs when required by contract.

It is the most amazing work force. Smart, organized and never a problem.

We also stagger our hours so those with kids in school can drop off and pick-up their spawn. Five great hours a day beats 8 listless hours.

[jluetjen]

Originally Posted by lane912

we need to do something that creates favorable conditions to create new jobs making things-
that is the way to remidy the current economic conditions

Originally Posted by lane912

well there would have to be another half to this program- raising tarifs on inported goods, making it economicly viable to manufacture products here- repeal NAFTA-

Those don't create anything favorable. All that they do is limit the markets in which we can sell our products, and make the import of products and raw materials which may be cheaper somewhere else more expensive -- which drives up the prices for the consumer. By the time that this vicious cycle runs it's course, you'll wind up like the Soviet Union before it's fall, with $0.05 loaves of bread -- but non available, not enough productive jobs for the workforce, and not enough demand to grow the economy. Inefficient farms and factories, low growth, no wealth (except for those who make the government's rules) and an all-around sucky life.

What you are proposing has been tried -- in the USSR (and in fact in the entire "Eastern Block"), as well more recently as places like Iran and North Korea.

(I wonder how long until this thread gets moved to PARF... )

[lane912]

Originally Posted by jluetjen

Those don't create anything favorable. All that they do is limit the markets in which we can sell our products, and make the import of products and raw materials which may be cheaper somewhere else more expensive -- which drives up the prices for the consumer. By the time that this vicious cycle runs it's course, you'll wind up like the Soviet Union before it's fall, with $0.05 loaves of bread -- but non available, not enough productive jobs for the workforce, and not enough demand to grow the economy. Inefficient farms and factories, low growth, no wealth (except for those who make the government's rules) and an all-around sucky life.

What you are proposing has been tried -- in the USSR (and in fact in the entire "Eastern Block"), as well more recently as places like Iran and North Korea.

(I wonder how long until this thread gets moved to PARF... )

then what would give manufacturing and large industry a reason to reopen or build new plants and hire americans? this has to be key to any recovery-

open to listening to your ideas

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by lane912

then what would give manufacturing and large industry a reason to reopen or build new plants and hire americans? this has to be key to any recovery-
open to listening to your ideas

A direct incentive on the part of the government to hire would help. If we (employers) were allowed to claim 125% or 150% of our employee costs as a business expense on our taxes it would be a huge incentive to hire. We saw what happened with the "cut taxes and hope" plan of the last decade. We cut taxes to spur industrial activity and industry took the savings and shipped their factories to Mexico and Asia.
If the goal is to help industry wherever it may be, cutting taxes is sufficient. If the goal is putting Americans to work, we need a direct incentive to do just that.
I know in my situation they could cut my taxes to 0 and I wouldn't hire any new people because too many of my customers don't have money to spend. I'm not going to gear up to build product than no one can buy. But if I got a better incentive to hire I would hire someone to wash windows and do maintenance work that has been here waiting for better times. That's just my situation. I don't know how many others are in the same boat.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by lane912

then what would give manufacturing and large industry a reason to reopen or build new plants and hire americans? this has to be key to any recovery-

open to listening to your ideas

A total restructuring of our taxation system. At present, imports are given very favorable tax status, since the products are produced in a place where the corporate taxes are low. Most of these countries "balance" between a VAT and income taxes. The VAT is not applied to things sent overseas.

I do not like VAT because it is a hidden tax. It is the correct type of tax, a consumption tax. If we changed to a national sales tax, while eliminating all income and payroll taxes, our country would be ripe for manufacturing. Maybe not low-tech/high labor stuff. But anything that is high value/high tech, will move to the US, for WORLDWIDE sales.