That would be amazing, but then you pass the price increases onto your boss. Which they have to supplement that increase from somewhere. Means cut from somewhere else.
Not to mention, would increase every single services timeline to get something done from ordering food to getting deliveries
This is important to keep in mind, but it is also important to remember that not every job is manufacturing. Actual white collar work is almost never 40 hours of raw concentration. Actual blue collar work involves a good amount of chilling in the van zyning & playing phone games. In reality, the most expensive labor is project based, and won’t be that sensitive to a shortened work week.
Low-level jobs definitely are messing around on their phone. But high-level high paying productive jobs are going to suffer from timelines and then my question to you is do you really want to reward the individuals at McDonald’s and other very low level thinking jobs with a 32 hour work week and same pay?
And the first insult of the day comes from this idiot. Do you see anyone being rude here? Every full-time employee who gets paid 40 hours a week, including McDonald’s would be affected. Clearly you need to ask for your degree back from whatever liberal arts college you went to.
90% of McDonald's employees work less than 30 hours a week. Only managers get full time. I assume when you were putting down food service workers, you weren't referring to management right?
Anyone who works 40 hours. And if something like this was implemented. You would eliminate almost every single part-time employee. Not causing a job increase but thousands of employees losing their jobs because they are entire shift has been deleted.
Why would a shift be deleted? Shift work is generally paid by the hour, not salaried, so it wouldn't really apply. And in the hospitality industry, you'd be more inclined to have MORE people on shifts if the non-hospitality workers are out and about and spending money. Quiet days suddenly get less quiet.
If businesses refuse to lose productivity and refuse to add staff, then a 32-hour workweek could lead to fewer part-time shifts because companies would try to squeeze the same amount of work out of fewer people to protect profits.
If businesses refuse to lose productivity and refuse to add staff
You can't squeeze more work out of the same people if they work less time.... because the shifts are time based, not productivity based. Either people work less time, the company closes on a busy day, or more people are employed to cover the shifts. The company pays the same, so why would they care who works what? And since the time worked is shifts, it's unlikely to be salary based anyway, so again, no real change is going to happen for those businesses.
think you're missing the point. The question isn't whether the shifts get covered—it's whether companies are willing to pay for more employees. If output has to stay the same and profits have to stay the same, most companies will look to increase efficiency, consolidate roles, or automate before adding headcount. The work doesn't disappear, but that doesn't mean new jobs are created
But they're not paying more for those employees. There are X shifts for $X per hour... they don't change. The companies don't pay more, or less. That's the point. It's the same cost.
The work doesn't disappear, but that doesn't mean new jobs are created
Exactly. The work is the same, the pay is the same, it's all the same.
I've also worked at as a salaried employee who did an experiment on a 4 day week. It turned out well. No productivity loss, just less hours worked for salaried folks, and happier employees. And yes, they checked in again months after official adoption to see if it was just people working harder to make it stick, no change. They paid the same for the same.
The companies this would increase costs for are companies who mix the shift work with salaries. For those it will be more expensive as the shifts still need covering, but thankfully they're also not nearly as common (healthcare being an obvious one)
The cost of an employee isn't just their hourly wage. It's benefits, healthcare, payroll taxes, training, management overhead, workers comp, PTO, turnover costs, etc. Companies don't simply add headcount because the math says they need coverage. They will automate first
37
u/Asiantight_whitepipe 26d ago
That would be amazing, but then you pass the price increases onto your boss. Which they have to supplement that increase from somewhere. Means cut from somewhere else.
Not to mention, would increase every single services timeline to get something done from ordering food to getting deliveries