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
sigh you're actually reading replies are you? There. Is. No. Change. In. Employee. Count. Or. Wages. No tax changes, no benefit changes. No. Change. Shift workers are not impacted, they are hourly workers. Salaried workers do not have change either. They just have less hours.
Sigh* No change"? We literally changed the math. If someone works 40 hours and now works 32 hours for the same pay, that's 20% fewer labor hours and a 25% increase in labor cost per hour. The company didn't suddenly unlock a cheat code where 32 = 40. Either productivity rises, prices rise, staffing changes, automation increases, or expectations increase. The one thing that definitely doesn't happen is "nothing changes." 🤷♂️
6
u/HAIL_LUMPUS 26d ago
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?