I have a question about reducing the work week

[bilby]

There are quite a lot of jobs in technologically advanced societies that are not so much 'making as many widgets as possible' but rather fall into the 'fixing the widget machine when it stops making widgets and starts making horrible grinding noises' category.

People in those kinds of jobs have their productivity determined by the number of failures, which is outside their control; and by their ability to diagnose and repair the faults - which is a function of their skill level.

Setting working hours for such a job is an anachronism; 'on call' hours may be 30, 40 or 50 per week, but the best workers are the ones who spend the smallest part of that time doing actual work - in sharp contrast to the old, ingrained paradigm, it is the person who spends the most time 'goofing off' who is the most valuable (assuming, of course, that all the work required to be done gets completed).

My team consists of about a dozen people worldwide, who each are assigned about the same number of jobs per week (we cover 24 hours, 7 days between us). The best of us spend very little of our workday actually doing anything; the customers like the guy who fixes stuff in half an hour a LOT more than the guy who takes two hours to get the same result.

I, like so many people today, am paid for the results I get; not for the number of hours I take to get them.

 

[dismal]

You're not really changing either the overall supply or demand for labor so I wouldn't expect the price of labor to change much.

People would have to get second jobs.

I would think if the cost of labor goes up by 50% after 30 hours as opposed to going up 50% after 40 hours it would affect the supply and demand of labor somewhat.

Employers hire a different guy to work the other 10 hours to avoid paying the overtime.

And since you are now only working 30 hours at your current wage you must pick up a 10 hour part time job somewhere else to make up the difference.

The net effect is same number of hours being worked at same price but additional inefficiencies since you have banned the more efficient solution.

 

[ksen]

Congress could work in some sort of measures to help small businesses offset any increased costs. I think they did that in France when they shortened their work week.

Well, according to the article posted previously, France allowed small businesses (less than 20 employees I believe) to ease into the new requirements over a longer time scale. Regardless, there's not much in the form of measures that could offset increased costs except for subsidies. Most business would probably just avoid the increased costs by cutting peoples hours, if we are talking about waged employees.

Except businesses in France started seeing reduced labor costs as businesses adjusted to the new rules.

Wouldn't it be much more efficient to simply have a universal basic income?

Yes, it would. Unfortunately a universal basic income goes over like a fart in church to those that actually have the power to implement one. I mean we can't do anything that might give labor more bargaining power.

 

[ksen]

You're not really changing either the overall supply or demand for labor so I wouldn't expect the price of labor to change much.

People would have to get second jobs.

I would think if the cost of labor goes up by 50% after 30 hours as opposed to going up 50% after 40 hours it would affect the supply and demand of labor somewhat.

Employers hire a different guy to work the other 10 hours to avoid paying the overtime.

Which affects the demand for labor.

And since you are now only working 30 hours at your current wage you must pick up a 10 hour part time job somewhere else to make up the difference.

It's not a given that you'd make the same hourly rate. There have been systems implemented where hourly pay was adjusted upwards so that on an annual basis you would still make the same amount.

The net effect is same number of hours being worked at same price but additional inefficiencies since you have banned the more efficient solution.

Which "more efficient solution" have I banned?

 

[barbos]

There are quite a lot of jobs in technologically advanced societies that are not so much 'making as many widgets as possible' but rather fall into the 'fixing the widget machine when it stops making widgets and starts making horrible grinding noises' category.

People in those kinds of jobs have their productivity determined by the number of failures, which is outside their control; and by their ability to diagnose and repair the faults - which is a function of their skill level.

Setting working hours for such a job is an anachronism; 'on call' hours may be 30, 40 or 50 per week, but the best workers are the ones who spend the smallest part of that time doing actual work - in sharp contrast to the old, ingrained paradigm, it is the person who spends the most time 'goofing off' who is the most valuable (assuming, of course, that all the work required to be done gets completed).

My team consists of about a dozen people worldwide, who each are assigned about the same number of jobs per week (we cover 24 hours, 7 days between us). The best of us spend very little of our workday actually doing anything; the customers like the guy who fixes stuff in half an hour a LOT more than the guy who takes two hours to get the same result.

I, like so many people today, am paid for the results I get; not for the number of hours I take to get them.

It's minor point, you still have to be available to do this (service) job. And if you are consistently 10 times faster than the rest then the rest will be eventually fired or learn from you.

But yes, eventually all dumb conveyor jobs will be taken by robots

 

[Playball40]

But then if full-time is redefined as being 1,560 hours a year down from the current 2,080 hours a year and a full-time position was previously paid, let's say, $46,000/yr why wouldn't the full time position still be paid $46,000/yr?

If you're producing 25% less for the company, why would they give you effectively a 33% raise? Your hourly rate would go from $22/hour (40 hour week) to $29.5 (30 hour week). Giving you more money for less work is not how companies rise to dominate the market.

Who says I'd be producing 25% less? In France many firms experienced increased productivity when the work week was lowered to 35 hours from 39 hours.

Measured how? Four hours less time spent in harness makes increased productivity...how?

Probably the same way more work gets done in less time now: changes in processes and technology.

You're saying you were hired to do a "job" for X$ per year. Not, you will work X number of hours for X$ per year. I think that if I can get my job done in fewer than 40 hrs per week, I should be able to go home (especially considering there are some weeks I need to work 50 hours). Unfortunately, my director frowns on that (old school).

 

[Playball40]

There are quite a lot of jobs in technologically advanced societies that are not so much 'making as many widgets as possible' but rather fall into the 'fixing the widget machine when it stops making widgets and starts making horrible grinding noises' category.

People in those kinds of jobs have their productivity determined by the number of failures, which is outside their control; and by their ability to diagnose and repair the faults - which is a function of their skill level.

Setting working hours for such a job is an anachronism; 'on call' hours may be 30, 40 or 50 per week, but the best workers are the ones who spend the smallest part of that time doing actual work - in sharp contrast to the old, ingrained paradigm, it is the person who spends the most time 'goofing off' who is the most valuable (assuming, of course, that all the work required to be done gets completed).

My team consists of about a dozen people worldwide, who each are assigned about the same number of jobs per week (we cover 24 hours, 7 days between us). The best of us spend very little of our workday actually doing anything; the customers like the guy who fixes stuff in half an hour a LOT more than the guy who takes two hours to get the same result.

I, like so many people today, am paid for the results I get; not for the number of hours I take to get them.

I agree with you Bilby. I spend an awful lot of time....doing other things....specifically because I "have" to be here 8-5, not because I have that much work to do. I tend to do things quicker and more accurately than most, so......well.

 

[dismal]

You're not really changing either the overall supply or demand for labor so I wouldn't expect the price of labor to change much.

People would have to get second jobs.

I would think if the cost of labor goes up by 50% after 30 hours as opposed to going up 50% after 40 hours it would affect the supply and demand of labor somewhat.

Employers hire a different guy to work the other 10 hours to avoid paying the overtime.

Which affects the demand for labor.

I don't think you're following the point.

Let's say I have a business that can profitably employ 10 people at 40 hours per week at $10 per hour. I am demanding 400 hours of labor at $10.

You pass your law limiting requiring massive overtime to have them work more than 30 hours. I can still get the 400 hours of labor at $10 by hiring more people and working them fewer hours. So, now I have 13 people working 30 hours and one working 10 hours, or 20 people working 20 hours or somesuch. But I am still demanding 40 hours and still paying $10.

But, you ask, where am I going to get these people? Well, if you were my employee working 40 hours per week and you just had your hours cut to 30 or 20, you need to go find another 10 or 20 hours per week job to get you back to the place you were before. So, you would still offer your 40 hours per week at $10 you'd just have to find two jobs to be able to do it.

After everything shakes out you have changed neither the demand for labor nor the supply and hence not the price of labor.

You have just made the system more inefficient because employers now have to find more people and employees have to find more jobs in order to get the same things done.

 

[ksen]

Except it doesn't have to work that way. And in places that have shortened their work week it hasn't happened that way.

So while I appreciate the time you took to explain it to me I don't see how it makes much difference since real world instances of lowering the work week have not resulted in the things happening that you say will happen.

- - - Updated - - -

The net effect is same number of hours being worked at same price but additional inefficiencies since you have banned the more efficient solution.

Which "more efficient solution" have I banned?

And you missed telling me what this "more efficient solution" is that I've supposedly banned.

 

[dismal]

Except it doesn't have to work that way. And in places that have shortened their work week it hasn't happened that way.

It may take a while to realign, but that's where it would head.

Unless you can explain some reason why it wouldn't. I can't imagine why a shorter work week would make anyone demand more or less labor in the aggregate.

 

[fromderinside]

Except it doesn't have to work that way. And in places that have shortened their work week it hasn't happened that way.

It may take a while to realign, but that's where it would head.

Unless you can explain some reason why it wouldn't. I can't imagine why a shorter work week would make anyone demand more or less labor in the aggregate.

Well I guess they don't because businesses pay for the opportunity to keep workers working more than 35 hours rather than taking the 'cheap' route and hiring more workers for the 35 hours limited schedule.

Busting the Myth of France's 35-hour Workweek http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20140312-frances-mythic-35-hour-week

It’s not just France where the laid-back workweek is more myth than reality. Professional hours in Spain also contrast with the country’s popular image. Pablo Martinez, a senior sales and engineering manager at a German multinational in Madrid, said he starts at 08:00 and rarely leaves before 18:30.“Things have changed in Spain to keep pace with international markets,” he said. “It’s not uncommon for people to grab some lunch and eat it in front of their computers, which was rare 20 years ago when I started working .”
In fact, the number of full-time working hours per week across Europe is strikingly similar. According to Eurostat, in 2008, the Eurozone average was just under 41 hours per week, with France slightly under 40. The range was also slim, with a low of 39 hours in Norway and a high of 43 hours in Austria.

 

[ksen]

Having a 35-hour work week doesn't mean you only work 35 hours a week anymore than our 40 hour work week means we only work 40 hours a week.

The difference being that employers would have to pay OT after 35 hours instead of 40 hours.

 

[dismal]

Having a 35-hour work week doesn't mean you only work 35 hours a week anymore than our 40 hour work week means we only work 40 hours a week.

The difference being that employers would have to pay OT after 35 hours instead of 40 hours.

All other things being equal it will cause employers to give employees less hours of work. But it would not give them any reason to reduce hours demanded so they would spread the same amount of hours across more employees.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If my hours went from the current 37.5/wk to 30/wk, my productivity would stay pretty much exactly the same as it is now. I, (and I suspect, most white collar workers) do not have my nose to the grindstone every minute of the working day; cut my hours, and you would see a disproportionate fraction of the cut taken from goofing off time. Here I am right now, surfing TFT. If I had some unfinished job in my inbox, I would be doing that; but I don't, so I am here, being available if needed.

"Being available if needed" is a larger part of my job than it is for many; but my experience is that a sizable fraction of most white collar jobs falls into that category - If everyone is truly busy, doing urgent and important tasks, then nobody is available to handle the unexpected; few workplaces can handle that level of utilisation.

Yeah--available-if-needed type jobs would suffer very little loss of productivity. I had one like that in college and it's wonderful for a student--I did virtually all my homework at work. (I chose unpopular time slots and ended up with a job that was at least 90% simply being in a certain room.)

However, there aren't that many such jobs around.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know if it was mentioned but shorter work week will in principle reduce unemployment and since working people effectively pay unemployed, the overall wage could stay more less the same.
Also shorter hours could shift job distribution toward more productive and less wasteful.
I mean with productivity going higher and higher there is less demand for actually meaningful jobs and people are forced to invent new meaningless desk jobs like accounting, tax specialists, personal trainers (for people who are too fat from sitting and doing taxes all day), used cars dealers, dog walkers, banksters, politicians, Fox News personalities, etc.

1) Working people only pay the unemployed for as long as the unemployment coverage lasts.

2) Unemployment is never anything like what they made in their job.

And why do you consider the jobs meaningless? (Other than personal trainers. An occasional observation of whether you are exercising right could be useful, one-on-one on an ongoing basis makes no sense to me.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are quite a lot of jobs in technologically advanced societies that are not so much 'making as many widgets as possible' but rather fall into the 'fixing the widget machine when it stops making widgets and starts making horrible grinding noises' category.

People in those kinds of jobs have their productivity determined by the number of failures, which is outside their control; and by their ability to diagnose and repair the faults - which is a function of their skill level.

I'll half agree--we have had repairmen as long as we have had toolmakers.

The nature of what the repairman fixes has changed over time, not the job itself.

Setting working hours for such a job is an anachronism; 'on call' hours may be 30, 40 or 50 per week, but the best workers are the ones who spend the smallest part of that time doing actual work - in sharp contrast to the old, ingrained paradigm, it is the person who spends the most time 'goofing off' who is the most valuable (assuming, of course, that all the work required to be done gets completed).

Which is why the auto repair business at least has standardized labor times for most every expected repair. A shop sets it's own labor rate but jobs are billed as if they took the standardized time no matter how long they really took. Thus the faster worker actually gets more per hour.

 

[Bronzeage]

Let's say Congress passed, and the President signed a law mandating a 30-hour work week. Anything worked over 30 hours a week would be subject to overtime pay requirements like we do now with the 40 hour work week.

How would this actually work?

Would hourly wages remain the same so now you have to make due on 10 hours less a week in earning? Or would wages get adjusted so if you were making $500/week working 40 hours you'd still earn $500/week working 30 hours?

This would essentially be a 12.5% pay raise for all wage earners, if nothing else changed. If the expected 40 hour pay were compressed into the 30 hour week, and the person worked the additional 10 hours, it would be a 37.5% pay raise. I don't think that is a likely scenario.

The economic question to answer is how much production would be lost if the work week were cut by 25%. A manager has a few options. The first is to pay the money and absorb the difference. Another option is to hire more people and limit them to 30 hrs. This keeps the payroll down, but increases costs, especially the intangible costs of managing more people. Unless production increases by about 25%, the business becomes less efficient.

The idea of shorter work weeks as a method of increasing employment has been around for a long time. The problem with the idea is that in times of high unemployment, many businesses are on the margin of profitability. Any decrease in efficiency will push them into a money losing situation. This leads to layoffs and business closings, which is the opposite of the policy's goal.

 

[dismal]

Let's say Congress passed, and the President signed a law mandating a 30-hour work week. Anything worked over 30 hours a week would be subject to overtime pay requirements like we do now with the 40 hour work week.

How would this actually work?

Would hourly wages remain the same so now you have to make due on 10 hours less a week in earning? Or would wages get adjusted so if you were making $500/week working 40 hours you'd still earn $500/week working 30 hours?

This would essentially be a 12.5% pay raise for all wage earners, if nothing else changed. If the expected 40 hour pay were compressed into the 30 hour week, and the person worked the additional 10 hours, it would be a 37.5% pay raise. I don't think that is a likely scenario.

The economic question to answer is how much production would be lost if the work week were cut by 25%. A manager has a few options. The first is to pay the money and absorb the difference. Another option is to hire more people and limit them to 30 hrs. This keeps the payroll down, but increases costs, especially the intangible costs of managing more people. Unless production increases by about 25%, the business becomes less efficient.

The idea of shorter work weeks as a method of increasing employment has been around for a long time. The problem with the idea is that in times of high unemployment, many businesses are on the margin of profitability. Any decrease in efficiency will push them into a money losing situation. This leads to layoffs and business closings, which is the opposite of the policy's goal.

I think it could conceivably reduce "unemployment" in the sense of more people having some sort of job but I don't see how it would increase the aggregate hours worked or wages (if anything the inefficiencies created would depress these) so you'd be spreading the same amount (or less) money around to more people. Not sure that's a good thing.

 

[fromderinside]

I think it could conceivably reduce "unemployment" in the sense of more people having some sort of job but I don't see how it would increase the aggregate hours worked or wages (if anything the inefficiencies created would depress these) so you'd be spreading the same amount (or less) money around to more people. Not sure that's a good thing.

Wow. So businesses were perfect before controls on hours where imposed and there is no room to adjust, make things different, perhaps work better since many under stress do work better and come up with better stuff? Whata world.

French businesses adjusted. Apparently the mode of more lunch, rest, relaxation, control by workers over their lives, and the like was seen as good for business and more in line with French culture so they coughed up the hours, days, whatever, to keep happy employees who still worked more than 35 hours and the companies still made money.

Whoda thunk? Certainly not you dismal

 

[ksen]

The net effect is same number of hours being worked at same price but additional inefficiencies since you have banned the more efficient solution.

Which "more efficient solution" have I banned?

And you missed telling me what this "more efficient solution" is that I've supposedly banned.

dismal, what is the "more efficient solution" I banned?