Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Is Testing a 30-Hour, 75% Salary Workweek (washingtonpost.com)

Amazon is planning a pilot program in which a select group of workers will need to work for 30 hours a week, instead of the usual 40 to 70 hours, and make 75 percent of the salary + benefits (alternate source). From the report:Currently, the pilot program will be small, consisting of a few dozen people. These teams will work on tech products within the human resources division of the company, working Monday through Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., with additional flex hours. Their salaries will be lower than 40-hour workers, but they will have the option to transition to full-time if they choose. Team members will be hired from inside and outside the company. As of now, Amazon does not have plans to alter the 40-hour workweek on a companywide level, the spokesman said.

122 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. This is the wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They should be trying out "30 hours a week, 100% of the salary and benefits."

    I thought Bezos idolized the sci fi future when no one would have to work?

    1. Re:This is the wrong answer by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      They are. As soon at they determine that 40 hour workweeks are unproductive/not required, they will phase those out and everyone working 30 hours will be at 100% salary and benefits. It's merely coincidental that 100% salary happens to have the same value at 75% of what 40 hour workers used to get paid.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:This is the wrong answer by blackomegax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you think people working 30 hours are doing any less work than people working 40? Most people only do 5-10 hours of real, actual, work in a week. the rest is fluff.

    3. Re:This is the wrong answer by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      No no, he ideolizes the future where Bezos doesn't have to work, and where he's the rule of a Metropolis like dystopia.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:This is the wrong answer by Sam36 · · Score: 2

      Your reply speaks the truth. I've done many long term and short term pure 1099 software contracts. Working from home, setting my own hours, working as much or as little as I want. Yet to get 20 actual billable hours of work definitely took all week...

    5. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a dev who works 50-60 hours a week, I'm not sure I really agree. My working day tends to be mornings drinking coffee, meetings, fiddling about with code and discussing options with other developers. After about 3pm I tend to get into the zone. I finish around 7 and sometimes work weekends if there's a problem I'm particularly keen to solve.

      The guy sitting at the next desk to me is a different story though. He seems to alternate between Facebook and Chrome, with brief 5 minute coding sessions. I'm not a snitch but it does fucking annoy me. I suppose it's like that in many places. A few key staff shoulder most of the burden and the rest blag a pay cheque.

    6. Re:This is the wrong answer by Moheeheeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      clearly you've never worked a manufacturing job.

    7. Re:This is the wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what makes you think that 30 hours per week people will do anything differently? If people only work roughly 25% of their time (as you seem to indicate) what makes you think that those who work 30 hours wont?

      You seem to assume that if you only work 5 hours a week, therefore you will only work 5 hours a week regardless. What you miss is reason for it. I.E. getting into work, being tired, opening computer and BSing, then eating breakfast, and lunch, and talking at a cooler, etc.. all this won't change just that you be there less time.

    8. Re: This is the wrong answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're not working on weekends that means you're doing up to 12 hours a day. How much time do you have left for family, hobbies and rest?

    9. Re:This is the wrong answer by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      " all this won't change just that you be there less time."

      You're absolutely wrong.

    10. Re:This is the wrong answer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's the kind of person who is more productive with under 40 hours a week, but feels like he has to do more because it's an hours arms race for promotions, so spends some of it doing his own stuff.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:This is the wrong answer by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      This user, the truth he sees. Disregard his opinion you should not.

    12. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Not really. I don't concentrate on coding problems very well in the mornings, so I tend to deal with organisational things like plans, ideas and so on.

    13. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      No I didn't. I'm in the coding zone about 4 or 5 hours per day. Meetings, discussions, planning, writing up things so on is work. Sitting at my desk browsing Facebook isn't, but then as I said I don't do that.

    14. Re:This is the wrong answer by Sam36 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you made my point. You code from 3pm-7pm...4 hours. Your billable "coding" hours are thus 20 a week, just like me :)

    15. Re:This is the wrong answer by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 2

      Amazon exec looks at people working 70 hours a week and getting paid for 40..... twirls his Snidely Whiplash mustache, and says "I wonder how I can save even more....... AH-HA! I'll reduce their "hours" to 30!!!"

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    16. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 2

      Part of the job of being a developer is designing, planning and documenting. If you're only billing "coding" hours you're probably doing it wrong.

    17. Re:This is the wrong answer by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      " it's an hours arms race for promotions". This is an illusion.

      Indeed. I have managed teams, and been the decider for promotions and raises. I never considered "staying late" to be a trait worthy of being rewarded. In the companies I have worked for, I didn't notice other workaholics getting disproportionately rewarded either. People get rewarded for getting their job done and adding value. Get your work done. Seek out responsibility, especially responsibilities that add value (profit) to your company. Ask your boss what your goals and priorities should be. Keep your boss informed .... Then go home and enjoy your life.

    18. Re:This is the wrong answer by dknj · · Score: 1

      that is just time spent coding. designing and planning, as well as documentation, should be separate tasks. i.e. you should be tracking time for each. if you are tracking time for each and you are a large enough entity, then why not assign a resource (person) to each? now he or she may be called into planning meetings or clarification meetings with the technical writer but that should be charged to project overhead hours and not actual billable hours.

      if you're a developer also acting as architect, also acting as release manager, also acting as technical writer, then you are probably doing it wrong :)

    19. Re:This is the wrong answer by Copid · · Score: 2

      This. Make your boss look good and very few other things usually matter. I've fired a guy who worked tons of hours because he was totally inept. I've also managed a guy I considered my MVP even though he was at a remote office and I had literally no idea how many hours he worked or even if he was even coming into the office. Managers value a person who doesn't require much management time and provides a steady stream of good news they can report to their managers.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    20. Re:This is the wrong answer by BouncingBob · · Score: 1

      No, because then you are adding overhead for no reason. "Developing" is not just coding, designing and planning are part and parcel of the job.

    21. Re: This is the wrong answer by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You might. I craft it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      I have found over the last 15 years that a lot of my time is spent answering questions - the main question being "what's the best way to do this?" There's a good deal of discussion, research and prototyping that goes on (playing, I suppose). But it depends on your field. If you don't have any problems to solve and you're just writing boilerplate, you're more typist than developer.

    23. Re:This is the wrong answer by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Or do what is common in Europe, 35 hour work week with 100% salary and benefits and six weeks paid vacation.

    24. Re:This is the wrong answer by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 2

      There is a life beyond work. Keep in mind that nobody will remember your 60 hour weeks and all nighters when the choice is between firing you and keeping CEO pay at the same level. Don't give an employer more than you owe them, the idea of reward and loyalty is sadly something from past generations.

    25. Re:This is the wrong answer by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Sure...how about other sites than FB. ;)

    26. Re:This is the wrong answer by jrumney · · Score: 1

      If they can get away with paying 75%, why wouldn't they? My wife negotiated reduced hours after our first child was born, and found that she was doing about the same amount of work, as she had more energy for work overall and felt social pressure to demonstrate that she wasn't a slacker for working part time. The company got a good deal out of, as no doubt will Amazon with this experiment. Probably they'll see the good results and roll this out to everybody, at which point the social pressure aspect will go away and their results will become less dramatic (though probably still overall positive). One concern I have is on the 75% benefits. Does this mean fewer holidays, partial healthcare coverage, a pension plan that won't quite cut it?

    27. Re:This is the wrong answer by Mark+of+the+North · · Score: 1

      Your comment gives me the impression you feel large-scale goofing-off is a given. At one time, I would have completely agreed. No more.

      Early on in my career, I often joked about being about 10% productive. When struggling with a problem, usually debugging, it was too easy to run out of steam and start surfing. I joked, but it really bothered me. So I quit. A few years later, I started in system administration for an organization that mattered. The work was fascinating, and the organization was providing a service to society that I could get behind, but we didn't have the resources to keep up. It was incredibly rare that I wasn't fully applying myself, despite regularly having to interact with some pretty toxic people and deal with intense internal politics. So there were days spent reeling from some of the questionable decision-making and the work-load was so high that there were Friday afternoons that I had nothing left to give. Even so, I probably only checked Slashdot a few times a year at work. With some effort, my productivity was above 90%, but it was wearing me down.

      Now I'm happy to be in software development for an organization who's service won't change the world, but the people are great, the work is interesting, the pay is good, and work stays at work. The closest I get to goofing-off is work-related conversations that go off on tangents. Without little effort, productivity is very high.

      My point is that productivity is a skill. In the right environment, it is easy to practise, but one can even learn, as I did, to be productive in toxic environments. And we shouldn't ignore our productivity in our personal lives, where it can have a larger impact than within the work-place. This is my current focus.

    28. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Very good Mark. "toxic environment" is the key phrase.

    29. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Compare commits to source control. It tracks changes, hence in a way it tracks how much work you've actually done.

    30. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just take my fucking word for it? You don't think I know what's changed in the project from one day to the next? How much actual effort it required? You think I'm fucking lying? An anon on slashdot, posting outside of work hours? Really? Get a grip.

    31. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      You don't need to communicate your ideas to other people? Cool.

    32. Re:This is the wrong answer by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      I think you're starting from the assumption that the guy goofing off is as productive as the guy who isn't, and the guy who isn't is generating lots of activity with little to no actual achievement. So let me turn the question around: How many team members have you fired for goofing off?

  2. I did this by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I was the head IT manager at a 200 person company and for budget and workload reasons I worked salary 25 hours for 50% pay. I also own a computer repair store that's open for 26 hours so that worked nicely but if I was married with kids or had a side job like ebay resale, it'd be great. I'd say it worked perfectly and if I had to go in when I wasn't scheduled to work, it wasn't midnight, it was more like 3:00 PM.

    1. Re:I did this by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      You managed to get full benefits working 25 hours a week? That's a pretty sweet deal. I was just going to comment something very similar, if you're doing something like trying to go slowly into business for yourself, this option would be soooo helpful.

  3. Well this is an interesting spin.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Alternative title: Amazon offers 30-hr/week employees benefits. Cause, reducing them to 30 hrs and paying less isn't some kind of amazing benevolent thing. The only mildly special thing is offering benefits.

    1. Re:Well this is an interesting spin.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And legally excuses them from providing Obama-care insurance benefits for their new part time employees.

      They are testing the waters, but I expect Amazon will be leading the way into forcing IT employee's into a Fast Food benefits / part time schedule.

      Posting Anonymously, because I work in IT and I know they watch my profiles.

    2. Re:Well this is an interesting spin.... by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it doesn't. 30 hours per week is considered full time for ACA purposes. It is, in fact, the bottom threshold below which you don't have to, so if they hired someone to work 29 hours, you'd be right.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Well this is an interesting spin.... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Well, no, it's not some benevolent thing, but it is nonetheless unusual. Personally I think this is a trend for the better.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. 40 hour week is a myth by Art+Challenor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd go for this in a heartbeat, except that the 40 hour work week is a myth at Amazon (and most large US companies for exempt employees). I suspect that 30hrs would become just a couple of hours less than the full time (60-80 hour) employees for 75% salary. If it was really 30 hours, you could work 30 at Amazon, 30 at Microsoft and get 150% of your salary for working the same number of hours as "full time".

    1. Re:40 hour week is a myth by Chris+Walker · · Score: 2

      You know, it's not a myth. It just requires discipline, and working for a company that doesn't suck. I've managed it for the 28 years since my first child was born. I just decided to start working normal hours. Since I got as much done as when I worked 60+ hours, no one seemed to care.

      Is this is really true for most large US companies? What's your definition of large? I've worked for companies with several $100 million in annual revenue, is that too small too count? Maybe you should avoid really large companies if that's the case.

    2. Re:40 hour week is a myth by Art+Challenor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Since I got as much done as when I worked 60+ hours, no one seemed to care.

      All these comments are valid. I suspect that people would get as much done in a solid 30 hours of working than the do in 80 hours of burnout. There was time (70's 80's) where, because of striking coal miners causing power shortages, UK industries were forced to a 3-day work week. IIRC productivity in those 3 days was about 90% of the 5-day week. Whether that would have been sustainable we'll never know because once the strike was settled the week went back to 5 days.

    3. Re:40 hour week is a myth by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      There is a massive difference between working for yourself to feed your family, and toiling away to line the pockets of someone else.

      Give me a hoe, a scythe, or a pick, and I'll work *my* fields from sun-up to sun-down, and enjoy the fruits of my labour (or otherwise) for the rest of my days.

      Force me to work for some asshole in a shit "open plan" office and expect me to give the best years of my life *and* pretend to enjoy doing it?

      Damn straight I'm not going to work beyond the bare minimum the system will allow...

    4. Re:40 hour week is a myth by khallow · · Score: 1

      I think what they're going to find is that people are actually equally productive as their 80 hour a week counterparts. It's absolutely insane to think people can sustain productivity working those hours indefinitely-- even just a few weeks of time are mostly impossible without powerful drugs that overtime will lose their effect because your brain is mush and your tolerance is absurd.

      It depends on the job. Jobs are not equal in their mental demands on people. A janitor could pull 80 hour shifts for example. A research mathematician can't. Nor are they equal in the value of the labor. A search and rescue operation in the middle of a disaster (where hours matter) is going to continue to save lives even at the 80th hour of work that week. A clerk at the local 7-11 isn't.

      Honestly though, if we're not lying to ourselves (or others), if you were to remove all unproductive time from your work week it'd probably less than 40 hours. If it was only meaningful work, that was necessary, it'd be 25-30. Things just don't move faster, people at all levels of an organization are lying to themselves if they think otherwise.

      If only we could magically make everything efficient. Well, that's not the real world.

    5. Re:40 hour week is a myth by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > (and most large US companies for exempt employees).

      Most??

      1. Citation
      2. Your sample size is too small.

      Currently I work for a Fortune 50 company (we have over 100,00 employees) doing WebGL / UI work and the 40 hour week is definitely adhered to.

      As I've climbed the "corporate ladder" it really varies from company to company. Some worked you to the bone with ~70 hours whiles others only worked you 35+ hours.

      The only trend I've noticed is the East coast vs West coast thing. East coast definitely tries not to over work people. West coast tend to favor over-working people.

      Anyways, it is always about _good_ management respecting their employees _long term_ health.

    6. Re:40 hour week is a myth by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      > If it was really 30 hours, you could work 30 at Amazon, 30 at Microsoft and get 150% of your salary for working the same number of hours as "full time". Or you could do what a former coworker of mine did. He had 2 full-time jobs, one of which allowed him to work from home - home being the office of the other job.

    7. Re:40 hour week is a myth by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If it was really 30 hours, you could work 30 at Amazon, 30 at Microsoft and get 150% of your salary for working the same number of hours as "full time".

      You could, OR you could work 30 hours per week, get 75% of your salary and enjoy your free time!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  5. Sticking to the caps? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

    I've heard that Amazon.com is a sweatshop.

    If "40 hours/week" workers work much more than that, wouldn't we expect the same for "30 hours/week" workers?

    1. Re:Sticking to the caps? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      workers will need to work for 30 hours a week, instead of the usual 40 to 70 hours,

      It's right there in the first sentence. They acknowledge that people work more than 40 hours a week, and this program aims to experiment what happens if they only make people work 30 hours a week. Of course, if you usually work 60 hours a week, you're probably used to doing 10+ hour days, and you could easily complete the 30 hours of working in 3 days. 3 Days on and 4 days off would be a pretty nice schedule. I would probably go for this type of thing given the chance.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Sticking to the caps? by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      But you should respond. Go in for an interview, ask them about how much work they demand, and then laugh in their faces and waltz out. How else will they learn they're being ridiculous?

    3. Re:Sticking to the caps? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I don't know about you, but I have better things to do with my time than go on interviews for jobs I have no intention of taking.

    4. Re:Sticking to the caps? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      As a habit, no. But considering most of the interviews in my life I've been borderline desperate and/or anxious, I think maybe I could find a couple of hours one time, if I thought I could 1) enjoy it, 2) have a fantastic story to tell, and 3) make a point at the same time. It's like good karma, community service, and a practical joke all rolled into one. I've got to think someone on this site is both skilled enough, bored enough, and has just the right sick sense of humor to do it, once fed the suggestion.

      Also, 4) it's easy to make a joke about what someone else should do.

  6. We Know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This was already posted last week:

    https://it.slashdot.org/story/...

    1. Re:We Know by jittles · · Score: 1

      This was already posted last week:

      https://it.slashdot.org/story/...

      Slashdot is a news duplication service for people like me who are usually too busy to look at the news every single day and miss important stories like this. Once I start my 30 hour workweek, I can stop subscribing to Slashdot's news duplication service.

  7. 30 hours? Not in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In all the FTE positions I've had, if the contract stipulates 40 hours a week you can forget about ever being promoted if you're working less than 60.

    I don't believe that the workload would be reduced in the same proportion as the salary. There will be as much as work as before, and in a big company there will be countless people who don't respect that you're working fewer hours.

    This is a country with very limited labor laws. At-will employment, no federally mandated vacation time and zero Dept of Labor oversight on unpaid overtime.

  8. Re:I already do this by sexconker · · Score: 1

    I regularly don't show up 2 days of the week, take that!

  9. Not until the laws are changed by Bugler412 · · Score: 1

    Any employee taking this option is a fool. They would be voluntarily giving up the (sometimes meager) benefits of being defined as a full time employee under US law. Great for Amazon, terrible for the employee.

    1. Re:Not until the laws are changed by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Any employee taking this option is a fool. They would be voluntarily giving up the (sometimes meager) benefits of being defined as a full time employee under US law. Great for Amazon, terrible for the employee.

      Under 32 hours and the law would say no benefits are required. Amazon is actually giving them a straight ratio of benefits instead of dropping them to part-time. It's the opposite of a dickish move, as far as the law is concerned (and Amazon is showing that the law need not dictate when businesses are competing for employees).

      There are probably many parents who will jump at this kind of opportunity (plus others who want to start a business, do more volunteering, or just have more leisure time).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Not until the laws are changed by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Amazon is actually giving them a straight ratio of benefits instead of dropping them to part-time.

      For now.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    3. Re:Not until the laws are changed by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Under 32 hours and the law would say no benefits are required.

      That's not true. You're required to pay for health insurance for anyone working 30 hours or more. Similarly, you're not allowed to restrict 401k for any employer working more than 1,000 hours per year (a little over 19 hours per week).

      They could cut the number of sick days or vacation days offered, but that's probably roughly the maximum extent to which they could reduce benefits other than salary.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Not until the laws are changed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      They could cut the number of sick days or vacation days offered, but that's probably roughly the maximum extent to which they could reduce benefits other than salary.

      That would make the entire thing incredibly pointless, though, because then they'd be offering the same amount of work for less money.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  10. I plan to do this by i+work+on+computers · · Score: 1

    I plan to do this once I have kids. I am a software engineer in a low cost of living area. Even at 75%, my salary would be still be twice the median income in my county.

    Once our new robot overlords do all the jobs, we better hope this is a common arrangement. Otherwise we will be in for difficult times.

    1. Re:I plan to do this by npslider · · Score: 3, Funny

      Once our new robot overlords do all the jobs, we better hope this is a common arrangement. Otherwise we will be in for difficult times.

      I just saw they are hiring for your job. Funny, it says in the first line of the job description: Only hiring AI

      I snuck in and saw who they were interviewing, I was dumbstruck.

      Clippy Smith
      MS Bob
      Cortana
      Dr. Siri
      AZ Echo
      G. Now

      I suspect it will either be Bob or Clippy. They have the most experience.

      Sorry to bring such bad news.

  11. Eliminating redundant work? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    Maybe they figure they can get by with 75% of the hours if they avoid having people do the same thing over and over again. You know, since they aren't a tech-news aggregator, where that sort of thing is apparently necessary.

  12. Heh by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    ADP threatened some staff with this about a decade ago or face layoffs. We took the layoffs because fuck working for 75% of our already meager wages

  13. If they're going to do this... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about making it 32 hours a week for 80% pay, and have them work Mon-Thu? Four 8-hour workdays a week would be much better than five 6-hour workdays....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:If they're going to do this... by justthinkit · · Score: 2
      From the summary...

      working Monday through Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., with additional flex hours.

      --
      I come here for the love
    2. Re:If they're going to do this... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting (to me): One of the side-effects of my Universal Social Security proposal is excess demand--a labor shortage. The fix is re-defining full-time working hours as 26-32 hours per week, meaning everyone gets dropped to 4-day work weeks. This happens because it's a trillion dollars cheaper than current strategy.

      In theory, with or without salary adjustment, dropping everyone's work time by 20% decreases their share of labor pay. That is to say: to make 1,000 things takes 4 people, or it takes 5 people each working 80% as much. As long as your entire economy changes at this ratio and wages don't change relative to each other (they can increase, decrease, or stay the same, but all by the same percentage), whatever salary you end up with is suddenly only capable of buying 80% as much.

      In practice, I'm pretty sure we have a lot of part-time workers (I've looked this up before) and a lot of slack time. On one hand, part-time workers would experience no change, so neither their income nor the influence they have on price would change: the stuff they make wouldn't become any more expensive. On the other, many people would work the same amount and spend their work slack-time as leisure-in-earnest instead of non-productive office hours: instead of being restricted by the facade of office hours, you'd be outside work enjoying the time you're spending doing nothing useful.

      That's actually a bigger problem. It means cutting hours without a salary cut raises the price of certain goods for part-time workers, but not for office workers; while cutting hours with a salary cut raises the price of certain goods for full-time workers, but not part-timers. The first case is regressive onto the poorer, and benefits the middle-classes; the second is harder on the middle-classes, and doesn't directly-benefit the poor. The second case is arguably better, since cutting working time in this way definitely cuts buying power in total, so someone has to get poorer, and you've restricted how much that happens and to who; but it has obvious undesirable issues.

      On the other hand, the end result would probably be about break-even for the middle classes in total (when you include the Universal Social Security benefit), plus a 3-day weekend every week, so ... eh?

    3. Re:If they're going to do this... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How about 32 hours a week for 100% pay and a nice productivity boost? Every hour beyond about 35 max is offset by reduced productivity in most clerical positions.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:If they're going to do this... by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Stop worrying about the middle class, the USA doesn't have one any more!

    5. Re:If they're going to do this... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree.. though it would be good if it were up to the employee how to do it (with input from the manager to make sure their whole team was staffed enough at any time). Though I'd probably toggle between the two sporadically. I already often take a day off in the middle of the week instead of making it a 3 day weekend. It seems more of an actual vacation day to me somehow.

    6. Re:If they're going to do this... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Interesting (to me): One of the side-effects of my Universal Social Security proposal is excess demand--a labor shortage. The fix is re-defining full-time working hours as 26-32 hours per week, meaning everyone gets dropped to 4-day work weeks. This happens because it's a trillion dollars cheaper than current strategy.

      Because creating further artificial labor scarcity via work week restrictions will fix a labor scarcity problem. I have an alternative solution here. Get rid of the work week restrictions altogether as well as many other regulatory encumbrances on the labor market. Then the people who want to work 80 hours a week or whatever can do so and your labor shortage can be fixed as well as it'll ever be.

    7. Re:If they're going to do this... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the summary describes a 16 hour week + "additional flexible hours". Beyond that, the only clue is "30 hours per week", which is evenly divisible by five days (or six), but not four.

      Hence my comment....

      Personally, I've been looking forward to the four day work-week for a long time. Last time we shortened the workweek (from six days per to five) was before my father was born....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:If they're going to do this... by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      "The good news is the upper class is growing."

      In volume (# of people, ideally as a percentage of total population) or in net worth?

      The stats look different to what you are saying. Read this and come back to me: am happy to discuss.

    9. Re:If they're going to do this... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Because creating further artificial labor scarcity via work week restrictions will fix a labor scarcity problem.

      Labor restrictions restrict productivity, raising prices and reducing what people buy, thus reducing employment. In short: you have less to barter with, therefor there is less you can barter for, therefor somebody who produces something will find nobody can pay them for the product, and so he becomes unemployed.

      Imagine you spend 10% of your income on food, 4% on clothing, 2% on personal care, 30% on housing, 18% on transportation, and 36% on entertainment and other non-essential spending. Call it by dollars: $100, $40, $20, $300, $180, $360. You have a total of $1,000 to spend.

      Now imagine everything just got 20% more expensive because everyone working 5 days making $1,000 is now working 4 days making $1,000 and, for every 5 such people, we hire another worker making $1,000 to fill in the gap (i.e. that last day costs an extra $200 per person now). I suppose you got this far and then determined there's that extra worker now, right? Let's look at it further.

      So now nobody's getting paid more; they're working less, and MORE PEOPLE ARE BEING PAID to make the products you buy. Your expenses are $120, $48, $24, $360, $216, and $432. That's $1,200--or $200 more than you were able to spend before, and even more than you're able to spend now.

      Well let's tie it all together. Food, clothing, personal care, housing, transportation... that's $768 right there. You have about $232 to spend on the other stuff you were buying--about 64% as much. 36% of the production related to those jobs is now unsustainable (there's no revenue to pay all those wages), and so those jobs vanish.

      That's the point. You create a situation where people have more money to spend than there are workers to supply, and then you boost the labor expense of anything they want to buy by restricting labor hours. Suddenly everything becomes more expensive, but nobody has any more money; the capacity to buy products beyond what our labor force can supply goes away, because we're suddenly all poorer.

    10. Re:If they're going to do this... by khallow · · Score: 1

      That's the point. You create a situation where people have more money to spend than there are workers to supply, and then you boost the labor expense of anything they want to buy by restricting labor hours. Suddenly everything becomes more expensive, but nobody has any more money; the capacity to buy products beyond what our labor force can supply goes away, because we're suddenly all poorer.

      And that leads to an obvious question. Why would we want to make everyone poorer?

      The whole point of any sort of universal basic income is to make most people less poor. Yet here, you state your fix makes all people poorer. So that sounds to me like we should do the opposite of work week restrictions and restrict them less rather than more.

    11. Re:If they're going to do this... by khallow · · Score: 1

      In volume (# of people, ideally as a percentage of total population) or in net worth?

      All three. It's worth noting here that the study in question dishonesty spins the results as "The American Middle Class is Losing Ground" (the title of the report) without noting that the upper two classes (five in total with the middle one being loosely defined as "middle class") in their study increased in percent of total population by 7% of total population for a 50% growth in the size of the two categories.

      Meanwhile the lowest category increased in size by 4% of total population for a 25% growth. I don't see the numbers of the original claim supported here, but it is a considerable improvement despite the claims to the contrary.

      So yes, there was some growth in the poorest category, but more people by fraction of population and by raw population become more wealthy rather than less.

      Finally, income inequality is not impoverishment of the middle class. It is dishonest to equate the two. Sure, there are some problems with a rise in income inequality such as the wealthiest having somewhat more power in society. But I don't see those problems really discussed.

      It's even worse in the "stats" link above which dishonestly claims that wealth inequality is somehow undemocratic, even though it's painfully obvious that not everyone has the interest or ability to maximize their wealth. There will be wealth inequality in a democratic society where people have control over their wealth.

      Nor is all wealth equivalent. You can't eat or live in some obscure financial security, for example. And any analysis which roundly ignores the quality of the wealth is doing a major disservice.

      My view is that developed world societies have done remarkably well at reducing poverty. But good news like that doesn't fit the narrative of societies needing massive change. So instead we see this obsession with other metrics. The wealth inequality metric is particularly dishonest because we would see a natural increase in wealth inequality from the basic demographic and global trade shifts of the past half a century.

      Current increases in wealth inequality don't come from the society becoming less democratic, but rather from labor competition with the many billions of people in the developing world. What do you expect when people who depend on their labor for their wealth are competing with billions of people who are willing to work for much less, while rich people whose wealth is in capital do not? Yet somehow this never was mentioned in this thread or in the links that have been provided.

      There's no real fix for this except to wait till developed world societies have near income parity with the developing world.

    12. Re:If they're going to do this... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Why would we want to make everyone poorer?

      Because a market with negative unemployment can't sustain itself, and rapidly destabilizes and then collapses. It's the same question as "why do we vaccinate against a fatal disease if the vaccine makes you ill for a day or two?"

      The whole point of any sort of universal basic income is to make most people less poor. Yet here, you state your fix makes all people poorer.

      Make all people poorer AFTER IMPLEMENTING A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME. That means richer than X, less-rich than X+n. You've slipped in a sneaky logical proposition to suggest poorer than X (the starting condition), which is a deceptive argument (lying).

      Besides that, the whole point of a universal basic income is stability. A basic income prevents people from entering poverty, and creates a firm poverty floor. In the United States, not everyone has access to housing, food, and clean water; our welfare system doesn't provide that at all. HUD provides housing assistance to 1 in every 4 qualified households; the other 75% go onto a waiting list AND NEVER RECEIVE A BENEFIT. Unemployment insurance pays a benefit for only 6 months.

      A basic income can remediate all of this. My Universal Social Security plan immediately places all HUD-qualified households above the poverty line--and bumps everyone from the lowest 5% of incomes up (that's about $7k/year) above the single-person household poverty line. It creates a minimum stable income class, whereas currently lower income classes are *unstable*--meaning low-income rental units today have to charge a high mark-up to cover risk of lost income (i.e. evictions, empty units), while low-income rental units under an effective form of basic income don't face that particular risk and so can charge a rent affordable by non-working individuals and *still* turn a reliable profit. Food, personal care, and other needs are within financial reach as well. It's a very low standard of living, and it's one we simply can't guarantee in our current system.

      This approach *also* prevents sharp unemployment spikes from technical progress, such as mass automation. Rather than raise wages for the classes of workers whose jobs are easy to reduce, you provide them a supplemental income. That means they have more buying power, and they don't cost the employer any additional money. There is, thus, no added pressure to replace them as a cost-reduction measure, and so strategic integration (i.e. employing a more-expensive human because you think the machines will be even-less-expensive in a few years) carries a lower risk (cost) and a relatively-higher benefit (the gap between your wage and the cost of the machine is smaller, so the business can swallow that if it expects a big ROI for later implementation). Different businesses will have different risk appetites and tolerances, and so this situation causes a more-gradual replacement of labor, allowing the market to adjust and provide replacement jobs before unemployment increases too much.

      The side-effect of all this is it's $1 trillion cheaper: it reduces effective tax burden on Americans by 40% ($1 trillion), and moves the remainder of replaced service costs directly into low-income consumer hands rather than into bureaucratic benefits systems. That tends to adjust from low-efficiency (high-margin) business to high-efficiency (low-margin) business, creating a hell of a lot of jobs. On-balance, it's more jobs than people; and an increase in the labor force would just push spending power up, leaving us with even more jobs and still not enough people.

      That effect is reigned in by cutting back on working hours. That makes everyone poorer by cutting back production (fiat currency is backed by productive output rather than something like gold). With 118%-123% employment, a cut of 20% would bring us to 5.6%-1.6% unemployment (anything less than 4% unemployment is dangerously low), with similar productivity to current. Tha

    13. Re:If they're going to do this... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because a market with negative unemployment can't sustain itself, and rapidly destabilizes and then collapses.

      Ok, what is a real world example of this? Because I find it hard to believe that it can even happen much have such a negative effect.

    14. Re:If they're going to do this... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      In the real world, it's been noted that employment above a certain threshold is unstable. In the United States, Full Employment is usually defined as 95%, meaning our current 4.9% unemployment is higher than full employment; some people speculate we'd be okay as low as 4%, and the 4.9% thing is incorrect anyway (UE4 is 5.6%, which includes people who would work but have given up because they think there aren't jobs for them; UE5 and UE6 include people who would like to work, but can't because their situation precludes employment on its own).

      To be fair, economists speculate low unemployment causes inflation. That is to say: at low unemployment rates, a business's strategic advantage for hiring an employee exceeds the cost of market wages, and so businesses pay more. If you cause high employment by providing a ton of extra spendable income, then businesses can raise prices, capture that income, and pay it as higher wages. The benefit vanishes, debts shrink, and savings go away. Such inflation also has all of the other destabilizing effects of inflation; and with a lot of people's savings held in 401(k) markets (which inflate right along with inflation) and increased income allowing further increased spending, you can easily get a hyperinflation effect, followed by a money shortage, followed by extreme unemployment.

      If the effect is particularly large, your economy collapses outright. If it's not so large, you get a minor recession, like in 2008.

      As for real-world examples of negative unemployment, they don't exist because nobody has ever managed to increase the income efficiency of an economy by 15% before (we take 30% in taxes in the United States; cutting out 50% of that would be a 15% increase in take-home wages, and the way I structured it mostly puts that back down to the lower and middle-classes, so consumer spending power gets a 20%-25% boost). That is to say: Nobody's taken an economy where consumer demand requires 95% of the labor force to be employed and boosted it such that you now need 95% * 1.15 = 109% (or 1.18% for a 25% boost).

      Let's put some numbers to this, and you tell me if this sounds like something that's ever happened anywhere in history.

      At minimum wage, a single-adult household moves from $12,754 to $19,996 (+57% income); a two-adult married household moves from $14,166 to $27,957 (+97%).

      The median household as a single-adult household moves from $42,621 to $49,085 (+15%); the median as a two-adult married household moves to $57,697 (+35%).

      The median married couple household moves from $66,560 to $77,128 (+16%).

      Low-income HUD households range from an extra 30% of spendable income to an increase of 111%. Single-adult poverty households (bottom 20%) range from a 38% increase to a 111% increase (the richest of the bottom 5%); married poverty households range from a 75% increase to a 219% increase (tripling their income, yes).

      At the high end, a top-10% household with $158,500 of taxable income moves from a take-home income of $114,970 to $118,282 (+2.9%). The top-1% earners move from $231,721 to $230,126 (-0.79%). Someone at the top 0.1% moves from $1,065,061 to $1,056,557 (-0.80%). Someone with a $10,000,000 gross income moves from $6,078,261 to $6,036,557 (-0.69%).

      At the same time, business payroll taxes reduce (businesses pay LESS to employ you, while you take home MORE), business income taxes reduce (4.5% marginal or about 11% proportional reduction), and the top-tier taxes don't exceed 40% (they're 39.6% now, and can actually be kept that way relatively easily--there's some $1,060 billion moving around here, and eliminating any and all tax increases on absolutely anyone would only involve shifting about $16-$24 billion around).

      What you're looking at is a bit of financial reorganization with impact of similar magnitude to showing up in caveman days and giving them modern agriculture with GMOs and oil refineries and everything. The way we're doing things is so shitty compared to what we're

    15. Re:If they're going to do this... by khallow · · Score: 1

      In the real world, it's been noted that employment above a certain threshold is unstable. In the United States, Full Employment is usually defined as 95%, meaning our current 4.9% unemployment is higher than full employment; some people speculate we'd be okay as low as 4%, and the 4.9% thing is incorrect anyway (UE4 is 5.6%, which includes people who would work but have given up because they think there aren't jobs for them; UE5 and UE6 include people who would like to work, but can't because their situation precludes employment on its own).

      In the real world, we can look at this instability. One thing that is quickly noticed is that it just isn't that unstable. Moving on:

      To be fair, economists speculate low unemployment causes inflation. That is to say: at low unemployment rates, a business's strategic advantage for hiring an employee exceeds the cost of market wages, and so businesses pay more. If you cause high employment by providing a ton of extra spendable income, then businesses can raise prices, capture that income, and pay it as higher wages. The benefit vanishes, debts shrink, and savings go away. Such inflation also has all of the other destabilizing effects of inflation; and with a lot of people's savings held in 401(k) markets (which inflate right along with inflation) and increased income allowing further increased spending, you can easily get a hyperinflation effect, followed by a money shortage, followed by extreme unemployment.

      We have never seen this hyperinflation effect from low unemployment. We have seen plenty of cases of hyperinflation from the currency issuer printing vast amounts of money often to support extravagant entitlement programs.

      Remember when Zimbabwe issued a 100-trillion-dollar bill?

      Case in point. Zimbabwe prints a ton of money and gets hyperinflation. This is despite having an insane unemployment rate somewhere in the high double digits (depends on how it's counted and who's doing the counting).

      Here's the problem with this alleged hyperinflation threat. Wage money is slow money. Inflation from it is naturally lagged by a great deal because it takes so long to get from higher product prices to higher wages. You simply can't create hyperinflation from the dynamics of the system.

      Even your wealth redistribution scheme is slow money. It takes time to take from the wealthy and give to the poor.

      Second, this completely ignores two things, that value is created and that there are alternatives to employing people in the region, such as employing people in other regions and automation.Value creation is another reason inflation is mitigated or doesn't happen. And it is the whole point of the economy not the number that currently happens to be assigned to a good in a market.

      While it's not universal, there are many jobs that scale and produce more value for more work per person. Arbitrarily forcing people to work less means less gets done.

      Finally, on this particular matter, when more value is created, then there is more stuff for money to chase and hence, less inflation.

      If the effect is particularly large, your economy collapses outright. If it's not so large, you get a minor recession, like in 2008.

      This is probably the worst misattribution I've ever heard for the real estate crisis of 2007-2008. There wasn't a recession because employment was a little high. There was a recession because of a vast malinvestment in real estate which can be traced back to two things, easy central bank money and extreme leverage in the real estate markets.

      As for real-world examples of negative unemployment, they don't exist because nobody has ever managed to increase the income efficiency of an economy by 15% before (we take 30% in taxes in the United States; cutting out 50% of that would be a 15% increase in take-home wages, and the way I structured it mostly puts that ba

    16. Re:If they're going to do this... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      We have never seen this hyperinflation effect from low unemployment

      When have you seen low unemployment? Have you ever seen 1% unemployment or a labor shortage in full?

      This is probably the worst misattribution I've ever heard for the real estate crisis of 2007-2008. There wasn't a recession because employment was a little high.

      Your response here is like responding to the claim that cyanide will kill you as quickly as a stopped heart by pointing out that people who die from heart attacks aren't poisoned by cyanide.

      I said you get a minor recession, like in 2008. There would be a recession. It would look like the one in 2008. It would have a different cause. What the hell is wrong with you?

      Why the people who work, of course. In a sane world, there would be more employment followed by immigration, global trade, and automation to leverage the people who are already working.

      Immigration is a form of localized population expansion. This comes with more production, which brings more wealth, and thus more buying power, thus more demand, thus more need for employment.

      Automation increases the amount of production per person, increasing buying power. It also allows for more scaling--it knocks down scarcity.

      To make this clear: the technology of 1920 was capable of sustaining about 3 billion people on all of the planet; a global population of 3.5 billion would have faced mass starvation and extreme poverty, as a greater proportion would have needed to work to make food, many of the things we were producing would have to not be produced because those workers would be busy making food, and we would still not have enough food. We made new technology, and then were able to increase population and have the same small proportion of that new population supply food for that growth.

      Automation does the same: it increases the output of a single person's work, allowing for further population expansion. This cuts back on the cost of things and allows people to buy more, which in turn requires the production of more, thus employment grows with population. It gives us the ability to employ more labor (in the long run), rather than cutting back labor demand as you suggest.

      While there has been some cases of rapid economic growth triggering inflation (eg, 19th Century mining towns in the US West), it's something that has rapidly corrected itself, sometimes by recession.

      Which you earlier said doesn't happen.

      I don't consider this even within an order of magnitude of your concern.

      It's not. Mining town growth provided immediate productive output. It cut the cost of energy, transferred jobs to coal workers, and enabled people in general to live at an elevated standard-of-living that built out with the growth of the mining industry. My Universal Social Security plan is like taking 30-40 years of such economic growth and dumping it onto the country all at once.

      Again: Imagine if $1,000,000,000,000 per year were dumped into the economy. Salaries don't go up, so the cost of goods isn't increased. Your employer still pays $50,000 to have you at your desk, but somehow you take home $6,000 more throughout the year, and NOBODY ELSE IS $6,000 POORER to get that money into your hands. Inflation doesn't make this go away: it's divided up as a fixed, scalar proportion of the money supply (17% of all income), and so e.g. 10% inflation means $1,100,000,000,000 more money is landing in people's paychecks, plus the 10% increase in their income they're already getting.

      Does that sound like anything that's ever happened in history to you? The total mobilized spending money is about $1.8 trillion, if you count money that's actually displaced (i.e. that this policy moves out of one person's hands and into the hands of another, notably giving poor people money to spend). That's 11.6% of all income ab

    17. Re:If they're going to do this... by khallow · · Score: 1

      We have never seen this hyperinflation effect from low unemployment

      When have you seen low unemployment? Have you ever seen 1% unemployment or a labor shortage in full?

      So show me this 1% unemployment society with the problems you claim it'll have.

      Let me break down the problems with the model you provide here. First, there's no evidence for your assertion that extremely low unemployment rates will have any significant effect on an economy aside from making it rather hard to fill jobs. There is some inflation effect, but it is an order of magnitude or more lower than anything you've claimed so far. There is a lot of elasticity in the job market and it's just not going to massively overconsume existing labor unless some urgent need or disaster comes up (like a meter of volcanic ash suddenly appears on the Midwest and the US needs food badly).

      Second, your "universal social security" scheme is just not that awesome. We already have a number of similar programs throughout the world which should have similar effects. They act more like friction for the economy than somehow generating decades of economic growth in a short span of time. Again, another key lack of evidence.

      Third, there's no linkage between having such a program and the problems you claim will happen. Why would demand for human labor suddenly jump massively just because wealth is being redistributed? There isn't really that much change in the economy. Poor people are just a somewhat bigger sliver. Nor is their spending somehow magic.

      Finally, you have the opposite of a solution - doing exactly what it takes to make the problem worse, doesn't fix the problem.

      Again: Imagine if $1,000,000,000,000 per year were dumped into the economy. Salaries don't go up, so the cost of goods isn't increased. Your employer still pays $50,000 to have you at your desk, but somehow you take home $6,000 more throughout the year, and NOBODY ELSE IS $6,000 POORER to get that money into your hands. Inflation doesn't make this go away: it's divided up as a fixed, scalar proportion of the money supply (17% of all income), and so e.g. 10% inflation means $1,100,000,000,000 more money is landing in people's paychecks, plus the 10% increase in their income they're already getting.

      I've already covered printing money as a source of hyperinflation. That has nothing to do with the employment rate as Zimbabwe has so amply demonstrated.

      Does that sound like anything that's ever happened in history to you? The total mobilized spending money is about $1.8 trillion, if you count money that's actually displaced (i.e. that this policy moves out of one person's hands and into the hands of another, notably giving poor people money to spend). That's 11.6% of all income absolutely, and 17% of all taxable income after deductions (including business income). Name one time something like that happened *permanently*, such that any inflation or increase in production would proportionally be reflected in the increased spending power (i.e. that if there's inflation, the amount of extra dollars you get to spend increases by that much, too).

      I believe global public entitlements are about an order of magnitude bigger than that. If something awesome was going to happen, we'd see it by now.

      My take is that a universal basic income scheme will just be another sort of mild friction in the economy. It takes wealth from people who were doing something really productive and gives it to people who are somewhat less productive. My expectations concerning such a scheme are that it's more something to keep people from starving and/or rioting rather than something that will have a significant benefit or change to the economy's systems.

      And as long as you aren't printing money, there should be little to no inflationary effect from the scheme.

  14. cheaper than daycare by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    i have neighbors who go to work early and come home late and leave their kids in after school and have a babysitter to drop them off at school and pick them up from after school

    if this is really 10-2 without any unofficial over time it's a great deal for parents of school age kids before they are old enough to walk by themselves

    1. Re:cheaper than daycare by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      What's with the whole "great for parents" thing---it's come up a lot? Its great for adults with no kids too. You work less, still earn plenty and have more time to have a life and actually derive enjoyment from the money you earn. You don't need kids to enjoy working less.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  15. 20% weeks by emj · · Score: 2

    Here in Sweden it's very common for people to work 80% weeks, but usually not in exclusive teams, most people choose to work every day of the week.

  16. Re:Bad idea for the worker by Shimbo · · Score: 1

    One of my previous employer did something like this, and I loved the idea, initially. Then I realized I was getting the same amount of work done, but being paid less for it and having less time to do it (unless I wanted to work on my own time, for free). .

    I'm unconvinced this is a bad idea for the worker. It's a good deal for the employer certainly, in that you likely lose some slack in your working day when you are there. It still seems worth it for an extra day off to me although YMMV. I am unhappy because my productivity has gone up seems rather odd to me.

  17. I must be doing something wrong... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    All my employment contracts for IT support prohibits me from working 40 hours per week. I haven't worked overtime in over a decade.

    1. Re:I must be doing something wrong... by npslider · · Score: 1

      I decided to take a walk on the wild side and stayed one minute over 40 hours on a Friday. It was amazing how productive those 60 seconds were.

      I heard the company's stock price doubled on Monday. I may do it again sometime. It felt invigorating.

    2. Re:I must be doing something wrong... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It was amazing how productive those 60 seconds were.

      Under the rules of my employment contracts, you would have been terminated.

    3. Re: I must be doing something wrong... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Good lord. Do they have alarms and a NASA style countdown so everybody is aware of COB? Or do they just fire you if you try to bill for OT?

      You clock in, you clock out. The numbers must add up at the end of week.

  18. does 30H means, working 45H and be paid less? by HaaPoo · · Score: 1

    Lets be clear here, who works 40 hours a week? all emails outside work hours, etc .... So this mean get paid less for a fulltime job?

    1. Re:does 30H means, working 45H and be paid less? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I do. My employment contracts prohibits me from working more than 40 hours per week. When I go home, work stays at work.

  19. Sounds good. by sootman · · Score: 1

    I know someone who was in line for a ~20% raise and, instead of taking it, changed to a 4-day week at the same pay (and with the samebenefits), effectively working at the same hourly rate as they would have gotten with the raise. I'd do that in a second if I could.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  20. I know tech people who've worked at Amazon by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    So I'm wondering if this is 30 hours full time + 138 hours where you're expected to be "on call" (which, at Amazon, seems to mean you should expect to be regularly doing an extra 20-30 hours each week without additional compensation).

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  21. Re:Bad idea for the worker by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    The article said it's piloting it for a "few teams of technical workers". The question is: are they salaried? If they are hourly workers it sounds fine. Otherwise, pretty sure they are going to end up doing close to the same amount of work for less pay.

  22. Full pay, post on Slashdot all day by raymorris · · Score: 2

    I notice that there are quite a few comments posted already.
    It's currently the middle of the work day in the US, and we're spending our time on Slashdot. :)

    1. Re:Full pay, post on Slashdot all day by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Summer hours?

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  23. Great for (some) working parents by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    I posted about this in the duplicate story from last week - the only difference is now the pay is 75% with full benefits.

    This would be a good option for a narrow set of working parents like me. My wife and I both work; she has an awful commute and a workplace that pays well but has no flexible hours (even for professional positions.) I have a flexible job, but not enough so I can work from home. So when my oldest kid starts kindergarten this fall, I'm still home when he's ready to get on the bus for school, but I have to arrange for someone to be there when he gets home. Something like this would be a great deal if:
    - Both parents worked reasonably well-paying, stable jobs. (A layoff while the other guy is working 3/4 time would be a serious mess.)
    - The family needs enough discipline to stay out of debt and have a lot of savings, for the reason mentioned above.
    - They also need to learn to live with less free cash flow in exchange for more time at home/elimination of some child care expenses.
    - Ideally, they would own their house or have a reasonable mortgage payment they could cover out of savings if a disaster happens.

    The problems I see with it are this -- the average family in a high cost of living area is just barely hanging on by their fingernails, has no savings, more than one mortgage, and a huge appetite for stuff. That, and Amazon is known for being a sweatshop that works people ungodly hours and does the stack ranking Hunger Games-style performance evaluations. I suspect something like this will lead to more age-based discrimination. Already we have 28-year-old employees with no kids willing to work 100 hour weeks while the more established family guys get the job done in 40, but appear to be slackers because they're not in the office at 11 PM on a Friday night. Amazon is already a Logan's Run kind of workplace and this could just amplify that and cement the "oh, you're done in IT if you're over 30" mindset.

    Honestly it's a great idea if implemented properly. I hate the feeling of getting into work and immediately the clock starts ticking -- trying to get the maximum amount I can do done in the time i have at work. If an employer can help reduce that stress level with a mutually agreeable program I'd be willing to try it.

  24. Re:I already do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Speaking as a former Amazonian, you are clearly not an Amazonian. That New York Times article was right on the nose. Posting anonymously because I'm pretty sure that my "this severance is contingent on not speaking negatively about the company" contract has already timed out, but they might go after me anyway. Yes, that was a real thing they made me sign. Yes, I sold out, because the alternative is that they'd take a pro-rated chunk of my signing bonus back. My team had a revolving door with a period of 11 months, so I think a lot of other people were in the same boat.

  25. I am sure a lot of you were thinking the same... by lambsonic · · Score: 2

    I have a very strong sense that this is so that they can hire more "family oriented people" (to get their count of women up), still make them work 50 hours a week, and still pay them less, but for not working 80 hours a week.

    --
    # make clean sig
  26. Interesting Branding by bfpierce · · Score: 1

    "We need to move some of staff to part time to save money"

    "Let's brand it as a new pilot program."

    "fucking brilliant"

  27. 3x10 2nd shift, sign me up! by nbritton · · Score: 1

    Provided we still get full-time benefits, I like this idea a lot. A lot lot. I would want to work 3 ten hour 2nd shift days, that would give me 4 days off and also I would have the daytimes to do whatever I want. It would be a great schedule for advancing your schooling with a postgraduate degree.

  28. On Call? by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    So how does that work? All the "40" hour people get lumped being on-call more often?

    "Sir, everyone took the guaranteed 30 hour offer. We have no one that can take the on-call phones anymore."

  29. Re:Slashdot, Home of the Dupes by PixelPusher1532 · · Score: 1

    Someone already posted that this was a dupe story. Would you please stop dupe posting about dupe stories.

  30. Re:Bad idea for the worker by idontusenumbers · · Score: 1

    All the reports I've seen suggest employees are no more productive working those extra 10 hours. This is great for amazon if it catches on. Employees will produce the same and amazon will pay them a lot less.

  31. Re:productivity by tohoward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's about right, based on this article (and related study). Work hours for peak cognition was 22-27 for women, and 25-30 for men, after that, working hours have a negative impact on cognitive functioning.

    Three-day workweek is the most productive for employees, study says

  32. Kellogg had a 30-hour work week in 1930s by RichPowers · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's an interesting book called Kellogg's Six Hour Day by Hunnicutt. Here's the synopsis:

    "Kellogg's six-hour day was the pinnacle of a hundred-year process that cut working time virtually in half. Kellogg Management, propelled by a vision of Liberation Capitalism, insisted that six hours would revolutionize society by shifting the balance of time from work to leisure--from economic concerns to the challenge of freedom."

    The employees grandfathered into the 30-hour week stayed on it until they retired in the 1980s. A 30-hour week gave employees more time for clubs, gardening, sports, family, etc. When you think about how wealthy we are in, say, energetic terms (useful work extracted from an ox vs cubic meter of natural gas), it's amazing how much time and capital we spend on destructive bullshit like sitting in traffic or paying people to do our taxes because the system is too complicated (we're paying a tax on paying taxes ffs). Just unbelievable how needlessly dumb the world is in light of automation, nuclear power, blah, blah, blah.

    The ancient Greeks viewed labor as a necessary evil that got in the way of more enlightened pursuits [1]. This is not to say they condoned laziness, but TPS reports, patent lawsuits, and $ModernBullshit are not the highest forms of civilization. Why we focus on metrics like GDP -- which in no way accounts for quality, or whether the "work" should even be done -- is absolutely beyond me. In the end, complex, industrial civilization is still relatively new compared to the species' time on the planet, so we're still trying to figure this out.

    [1] = https://www.jstor.org/stable/6...

    1. Re:Kellogg had a 30-hour work week in 1930s by Beorytis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A few years later, there was even a bill to establish a 30-hour workweek that made it through Congress: http://www.alternet.org/labor/...

    2. Re:Kellogg had a 30-hour work week in 1930s by RichPowers · · Score: 1

      Thanks for sharing. Just from reading about that era, I picked up vibes that shortening the work week was taken seriously by a lot of eminent people, but had no idea about that bill.

      One of the reasons I enjoy studying history is that you see lots of sensible ideas and movements that were somehow lost or abandoned along the way. For example, Colonial America was probably the most literate society in history up to that point, and without a massive education bureaucracy. That's interesting to me -- how can we learn from that experience and outcome? How can we educate people without an Education System per se? You don't want to idolize the past or fall into Lost Cause-type romanticism, but you also don't want to discard it, either.

  33. so less than half the work for 75% pay by hraponssi · · Score: 1

    Brilliant. So others slave on 70 hours a week as the story says (as I understand, your regular Amazon working week), and get 100% pay, while you work for 30h and get 75% pay. Sounds like a deal everyone should take. Or maybe it won't really work like that.. ?

  34. Only for special people by RoscoeChicken · · Score: 1

    Like the single mother of six kids whose hiring warms the hearts of everyone reading the story in the lifestyle section of the Seattle newspaper.

    (Don't laugh. Saw it in my CS program.)

  35. 30 hours by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    My butt....5 will get you 10, that it will be 30 hours "on the clock", but, required to be at their beck & call, the other 10 hours of "the week".

  36. Re:productivity by Fragnet · · Score: 1

    I suppose it depends on the job. My productivity increases throughout the day. I'm not so good in the mornings but after about 2pm things start to pick up. It's probably the accumulation of caffeine.

  37. Google does something like this by swillden · · Score: 1

    Google does something like this, on a selective basis.

    I think it started as something done only for special cases, but I know a few people who arranged it. One woman I know works three days per week instead of five, for 60% of her normal salary. She has also taken a large chunk of her 18-week maternity leave and uses it one day per week, so she actually works two days per week but gets paid for three, until the maternity leave runs out. Her husband has arranged a similar structure with his employer (not Google), working three days per week so one of them is always home with the kids. She's a fairly special case, though, because she's a freakishly brilliant software engineer who any smart company would bend over backwards to accommodate.

    However, it's now been expanded to be made generally available to full-time employees. It requires management approval, but the descriptions I've seen make it clear that management is expected to agree unless there are specific reasons why it can't work. Salary, bonuses and stock are pro-rated based on the percentage of a normal schedule that is worked. Most commonly, people work 60% or 80% schedules (i.e. three or four days per week instead of five). Other benefits, such as health care, etc., are not pro-rated, but either provided or not, depending on the percentage of normal hours worked.

    I could see myself going to a 60% work week in a few years, having a four-day weekend every week in exchange for a 40% pay cut.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  38. Re:On the death bed by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
    "They say no man ever faced death wishing he had spent more time at the office. Well, I guess I'll be the first one!"

    -the PHB

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  39. Re:Benefits? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    if your pay hourly then they must pay OT.

  40. no, that other future by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Apparently Bezos idolized that other future, where people work part time and get part benefits.

  41. 4 x 4 = 16 + x = fuck-nose by bigtreeman · · Score: 1

    so how do they get 30 hours from 4 days 10am - 2pm with 14 flex hours
    good for parents who can't add up and have to get their kids to school.

    --
    Go well
  42. Re:(4 x 4 = 16) +14 = 30 by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    Um, by adding 14 to 16?

    Sounds like you've put in too many hours already this week. You should take some time off.

  43. Is this a troll? by johncandale · · Score: 1

    Your day: "coffeee" not working "meetings" everyday? How much is socializing, eating donuts, headnodd, etc. and how much is keeping everyone on same page. "fiddling about with code and discussing options with other developers" work After about 3pm I tend to get into the zone. I finish around 7 so most of your real actual work is 4 hours? subtract bathroom breaks and lucnh/dinner breaks.

    1. Re:Is this a troll? by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      I don't take lunch breaks. I have about 30 minutes "goofing off" per day. I go to the loo once or twice a day. I make 3 or 4 cups of coffee a day. I don't goof off for 7 hours a day and if I've finished my task I won't sit there and goof off until somebody gives me a new one. I'll get up and go and find one. You?