Remembering the 40-hour workweek

[ysabetwordsmith]

 ... which is of course gone.  Life sucks, because nobody has time for life anymore.  It's all drudgery.  Often it doesn't even pay enough to live on.

Comments

work week

[dialecticdreamer]

Remember when there was talk about the work week creeping DOWN to thirty hours a week?

It was at a time when /employees/ had an effective weapon against corporate exploitation. It was at a time when education was valued, and there was genuine concern that we would educate ourselves out of a ready supply of /unskilled/ labor for the unpalatable jobs that still have to get done. And it was at a time when inflation wasn't on the very CUSP of becoming hyperinflation, as it did in Germany after WW1. I'm finding far, far too many parallels in our modern America to that particular powder keg.

Re: work week

[ysabetwordsmith]

Mmm. I'm also seeing parallels to the Roman Empire during its collapse. I quit watching the news years ago when I realized that I no longer had anything to say about it other than "bread and circuses."

[samuraiter]

*ponders*

I wish I could remember which study it was, but there was one that suggested that a 24-hour work week is ideal: Not too much stress, plenty of time at home. Of course, that would require a living wage per hour, so ... not happening in the U.S., alas.

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith]

That sounds sensible. Of course it does raise the question whether all the work can get done in that amount of time.

Re: Yes...

[silver_gull]

The solution to that seems simple enough too: if a shorter work week per employee doesn't get the same amount of work done, employ more people. In most cases there would have to be training involved, but my understanding is that a lot of people in the US are wasting* time and money on degrees they won't use anyway, just because it's what's done, and that there's a surplus of people who want to be employed. So it's possible a 24-hour workweek would solve two problems at once.

Of course, that would still depend on raising wages.

*I would not consider a degree the student wants for the sake of learning to be a waste, but as a stepping stone to a job it's often not effective.

[fyreharper]

That sounds about right... I tended to work 26-to-30-hour weeks back when I had more flexibility on that.

Now, on the other hand, the "modified work" terms that I have for workers comp are that I have to take short stretch breaks periodically, and not work more than 40 hours a week. Which, what? The idea that that is a special-case work restriction is just *wrong*.

Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Too much work has been demonstrated to break people's bodies. Really, nobody should be working in conditions or amounts that destroy their health. But then society is obligated to support them at that level of activity, not force them into poverty.

[p_cocincinus]

I have a 40-hour workweek. (It's longer during our busy season, but I get overtime and it's voluntary.) That said, I work for that incredibly rare animal, the company that values its employees, pays them well, and encourages work-life balance. (They do still exist!)

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith]

You're very fortunate.

[westrider.livejournal.com]

We'd probably be better off overall with even less, like a 30-32 hr work week for most jobs. (Assuming, of course, that the wages are adjusted so 30-32 hrs/week pays a living wage.) 40 hours a week is already pushing the limits of how long humans can maintain productivity in many environments, and when you push past that for an extended period of time, overall productivity actually drops, due to people slowing down from exhaustion, making more mistakes, etc.

I haven't seen studies on <40 hour weeks, but I'd bet that there are cases where dropping down to 30 or 32 would actually increase total productivity, because people are more focused, more rested, and less resentful because their jobs aren't eating their lives.

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>> We'd probably be better off overall with even less, like a 30-32 hr work week for most jobs. <<

That's true for some types of exhausting jobs, and anything that people do only for the money. Jobs that people enjoy, it's okay to work longer. I spend much of my writing wordsmithing because that's what I like.

>> (Assuming, of course, that the wages are adjusted so 30-32 hrs/week pays a living wage.) <<

True. Even working 60 or 80 hours a week, many people can't make a living wage.

Re: Yes...

[westrider.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I said "most" based on my own experience. I've generally been most productive at around 30 hours per week, but there have been exceptions.

Then my current job is kind of an outlier, because in one sense I "work" around 55 hours a week, but the vast majority of that time, I don't actually have to do anything, I just have to be here and be attentive, so I can get up and help when needed. Right now I'm technically at work, and I'm getting paid, but what I'm actually doing is sitting around surfing the internet and not wearing pants ;)

Re: Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

I like working from home precisely because, if it's too hot in here, I can just peel off.

[wyrmwwd.livejournal.com]

I, technically, don't have a job, and I work about 60 hours a week. I only get paid for a few of those hours... the "billable" hours. I don't make NEARLY enough to live on. I'm having to stay with a friend because I don't have enough for rent. If I had parents, I would be living with them. (I'm 58).