[HN Gopher] H.R.1332 - Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       H.R.1332 - Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act
        
       Author : cebert
       Score  : 28 points
       Date   : 2024-03-14 22:19 UTC (42 minutes ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.congress.gov)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.congress.gov)
        
       | ianai wrote:
       | Unfortunately many congresspeople routinely file such bills only
       | to never get consideration.
        
         | Simulacra wrote:
         | I was curious about this, and so I found that the entire time
         | that Bernie Sanders has been in the Senate, only two pieces of
         | legislation he has sponsored has actually become law.
         | 
         | When he was a member of the House of Representatives, he only
         | sponsored one bill that became law, which was to rename a post
         | office
         | 
         | Source:
         | 
         | https://www.congress.gov/advanced-search/legislation?congres...
        
         | emestifs wrote:
         | Still in the "Introduced" stage. Given the amount of lobbying
         | in the US, and isn't the US senate Republican controlled(?),
         | and lack of bipartisan cooperation, seems impossible for this
         | to go anywhere.
        
       | Mo3 wrote:
       | With 40 hour pay? That's the real question
        
         | jedberg wrote:
         | Yes it includes a bit about no reduction in pay. Basically just
         | changes overtime to anything after 32 hours.
        
       | jedberg wrote:
       | It's actually a decent bill. It basically says overtime starts at
       | 32 hours instead of 40, and says that you can't cut salary
       | because of this bill.
       | 
       | I suspect if it actually passed (highly unlikely) that it would
       | lead to wage stagnation for a few years as companies would say
       | "well you got a 20% raise because of this law so you're good for
       | a few years".
        
         | avarun wrote:
         | The other issue is that most white collar careers are already
         | considered overtime-exempt, so it doesn't really matter if the
         | cutoff is 32 hours or 40 hours. Given employment structure in
         | the US a company can require you to work 100 hour weeks and the
         | only thing employees can do is quit.
        
         | Kluggy wrote:
         | I'd be fine with wage stagnation for awhile if I got a day back
         | a week.
        
         | lapetitejort wrote:
         | I suspect people will work two hours less on Monday-Wednesday
         | and one hour less on Thursday and Friday. Meanwhile wage theft
         | by way of "long lunch breaks" and "volunteer" hours will
         | increase by eight hours per week.
        
         | enlyth wrote:
         | Feels like it would be worth it, at least eventually. Time is
         | worth so much more than money
        
       | joshribakoff wrote:
       | If you are on salary, normally you don't get overtime. If you're
       | on hourly, this potentially just means less hours
        
       | alphazard wrote:
       | Doesn't this just make it harder for humans to compete with
       | machines and automation? If you had a job that was on the cusp of
       | being done by an LLM, now it's definitely gone.
        
         | sabellito wrote:
         | You think that 8 extra hours would be the solution for humans
         | to compete with machines and automation?
        
         | BugsJustFindMe wrote:
         | > _If you had a job that was on the cusp of being done by an
         | LLM, now it 's definitely gone._
         | 
         | If you have a job on the cusp of being done by an LLM, then
         | it's already imminently gone. This changes nothing.
        
         | headline wrote:
         | I feel like eight hours a day is already a bit less than
         | twenty-four.
        
       | tptacek wrote:
       | This is barely even policy. It will never happen. A list of
       | problems:
       | 
       | * Fundamentally what this does is offer some workers doing a
       | 40-hour non-exempt workweek an additional 4 billable hours. But
       | all that does is take a snapshot of current wages and offers a
       | temporary benefit; prevailing wages will adjust to capture this
       | phenomenon. Remember that very few full-time workers in the US
       | make the minimum wage.
       | 
       | * The economy is not set up to run on a 4-day workweek, most
       | especially for the non-exempt employees who are the only people
       | this bill applies to. A doctor's office is not going to shift
       | from 5-day weeks to 4-day weeks to accommodate this, so either
       | the non-exempt intake person is going to get converted to two
       | non-exempt part-time intake people, or they're going to work a 40
       | day workweek anyways.
       | 
       | * There is a huge swath of the economy that is in the same
       | economic class as the median non-exempt worker but makes a
       | salary, and, for no reason anybody backing this has explained,
       | they get no benefit from this at all.
        
       | hereme888 wrote:
       | How about government mind its own business and let the free
       | market hash it out?
       | 
       | Most of the world keeps working harder and harder, catching up
       | more and more to the US. Keep it up and Americans will become
       | uncompetitive relative to foreign labor.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-14 23:02 UTC)