Should there be a cap on hours worked per week?

[RR1997]

This thread was inspired by the recent death of a Goldman Sachs investment banking analyst who died recently from over-working. It's sad hearing stories about IB analysts dying/killing themselves because of over-working (this is really common too, with almost all of the cases being suicides).

Anyways, should there be a cap on hours worked per week? If so, what should the cap be?

My opinion:

No, but I could see why someone would vote yes.

[bedstuy]

It depends on the industry to an extent.  Pilots, nurses, doctors, people who have the power to kill you by accident, they should get a chance to sleep at some point. 

Otherwise, I would also wonder if there's a point where you're compromising your level of attention and the quality of your work by not taking breaks.  But, there are weeks from hell where you absolutely need to put in 70-80 hours because there's a hard deadline in front of you.  So, I don't think you need a hard cap in something like investment banking. 

And, what about feeling sad for the people who killed themselves because they lost their house in the financial crisis caused by these poor, hard-scrabble, overworked bankers?  It's hard for me to feel sorry for investment bankers, they chose that life because they wanted lots of money.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Something like 55 hours or something.  Or never more than 225 in a month orsomething.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Absolutely. Wall Street needs to self-impose 60-hour weeks for analysts and until they do, they will keep missing out on top talent and see lots of talent leave them for smaller venues. I would never work there at the moment (much more because of cultural flaws than the work week, but both are serious issues). I can see 80 as a good next step after this no-work Saturday thing they got going, but there are still far too many cases of triple digits. I only applied to two banks for this summer, and they were not in i-banking roles.

I am a proponent of a 32-hour work week for full-time, so I'd imagine it would be difficult for an hourly employee to go over 70 with two jobs, but if they are getting that high, it's more about their own ambition to earn rather than compete with others as the organization surely doesn't want to pay them overtime. Still, I'd rather see someone with two jobs not going over 60-65 total if they feel they need to work that much to sustain their lifestyle. Really gets in the way of family if that's the route the employee chooses.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about work-week length for every type of person so I'm sure there are holes in that view where it harms someone and I would partially reconsider to help circumstances, but it really ought to be reduced in some capacity.

[Indy Texas]

I'm not sure how you enforce this absent of making everyone clock in and out. (And that still wouldn't address people working from home, taking a work call while they're out, etc.)

I strongly agree with the Labor Department's decision to raise the salary cap for non-exempt (overtime eligible) employees. It is absurd that a fast food franchise can classify a $20,000/year shift supervisor as a "manager" so that they don't get a dime of overtime when they're covering people's shifts and spending extra time opening and closing the store.

The "culture" issues you see in high-end investment banks and consulting firms reflect a tension we have in our society. We talk about the importance of family values and demonize single mothers and absent fathers and divorce and wayward children, but we tacitly approve a workplace culture that makes "traditional" families impossible to maintain.

So on one hand you have Sheldon Adelson types who burn through a new wife every few years and whose children hate them, who relentlessly dedicate their lives to their work and reap enormous financial benefits. And yet they decry the breakdown of the traditional family. What is more of a threat to traditional marriage? Two women getting married? Or a husband who is never home when his wife is awake and who is sitting in his car on a conference call during his son's baseball game?

And on the other hand you have your archetypal middle class American family that did "settle" - the husband who married and had kids in his twenties and dutifully left work promptly at 5pm, ensuring that he would not be a candidate for management while the guys who were still at the office would be. And now he's 45 and complaining about how he can't get ahead and his house still isn't paid off and he can't afford to pay for his kids' college. And then he turns around and votes for a party that glorifies the men who are on Wife #3 while guys like him are "losers" who should have just worked harder.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can see putting a limit on people who work for a salary rather than hourly wages.

[TDAS04]

Something like 55 hours or something.  Or never more than 225 in a month orsomething.

Basically this.

[TNF]

Absolutely. No person should be allowed to work more than 30 hours per week, and anyone working over that now should not lose any pay from going down to a shortened workweek.

[DC Al Fine]

Absolutely. No person should be allowed to work more than 30 hours per week, and anyone working over that now should not lose any pay from going down to a shortened workweek.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you propose employers work around... life? Crap happens from time to time, and its hardly torture if someone chooses to work some overtime to cover the load and make a few extra bucks.

[DC Al Fine]

To answer the OP's question, I agree with Bedstuy. There should be a hard cap where safety is concerned. I'll leave the specifics up to the experts since I have no idea what's safe and what isn't.

To be honest, I'm not sure why so many employers encourage long hours, and some employees choose to work like that. My experience working in accounting is that most people are useless after 60 hours, and become useless after even less time if they've been working long hours consistently.

[Samantha]

Absolutely. No person should be allowed to work more than 30 hours per week, and anyone working over that now should not lose any pay from going down to a shortened workweek.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you propose employers work around... life? Crap happens from time to time, and its hardly torture if someone chooses to work some overtime to cover the load and make a few extra bucks.

One should not have to sell even more of their life to their employer to cover basic expenses.

[Samantha]

Absolutely. No person should be allowed to work more than 30 hours per week, and anyone working over that now should not lose any pay from going down to a shortened workweek.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you propose employers work around... life? Crap happens from time to time, and its hardly torture if someone chooses to work some overtime to cover the load and make a few extra bucks.

One should not have to sell even more of their life to their employer to cover basic expenses.

Oh, cut it out. Real life isn't a battle between employers and employees.

I guess you've never been threatened with termination for refusal to work holidays/overtime.

[Mr. Smith]

Absolutely. No person should be allowed to work more than 30 hours per week, and anyone working over that now should not lose any pay from going down to a shortened workweek.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you propose employers work around... life? Crap happens from time to time, and its hardly torture if someone chooses to work some overtime to cover the load and make a few extra bucks.

One should not have to sell even more of their life to their employer to cover basic expenses.

Oh, cut it out. Real life isn't a battle between employers and employees.

Someone's clearly never had a low paying job, and especially not one in sales.

[TNF]

Absolutely. No person should be allowed to work more than 30 hours per week, and anyone working over that now should not lose any pay from going down to a shortened workweek.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you propose employers work around... life? Crap happens from time to time, and its hardly torture if someone chooses to work some overtime to cover the load and make a few extra bucks.

Hire more employees. A cap on hours worked would open up positions and allow for more people to come out of the unemployment line and into the workforce. If there are still positions open after that, then the solution is to (a) open up the borders and (b) build socialized daycare centers so that more women can enter the workforce.

Absolutely. No person should be allowed to work more than 30 hours per week, and anyone working over that now should not lose any pay from going down to a shortened workweek.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you propose employers work around... life? Crap happens from time to time, and its hardly torture if someone chooses to work some overtime to cover the load and make a few extra bucks.

One should not have to sell even more of their life to their employer to cover basic expenses.

Oh, cut it out. Real life isn't a battle between employers and employees.

You've clearly never held a job.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anything over 32 hours should be considered overtime and paid a wage at least 1.5 times higher than the regular one. The absolute limit can be around 48 hours.

[YaBoyNY]

Certainly.

[DC Al Fine]

Absolutely. No person should be allowed to work more than 30 hours per week, and anyone working over that now should not lose any pay from going down to a shortened workweek.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you propose employers work around... life? Crap happens from time to time, and its hardly torture if someone chooses to work some overtime to cover the load and make a few extra bucks.

Hire more employees. A cap on hours worked would open up positions and allow for more people to come out of the unemployment line and into the workforce. If there are still positions open after that, then the solution is to (a) open up the borders and (b) build socialized daycare centers so that more women can enter the workforce.

You've clearly never held a job.

Have you? I mean seriously how have you been employed for as long as you have and not absorbed even the most basic facts of the workplace?

Training has a non-zero cost, and unexpected things happen. Combining those two facts with your proposal results in drastic declines in quality and rampant featherbedding.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Anything over 32 hours should be considered overtime and paid a wage at least 1.5 times higher than the regular one. The absolute limit can be around 48 hours.

Lol academics Europeans.

Even though I agree with him, this seemed more appropriate.

[RFayette]

This thread is a good reminder in the huge mindset difference between America and Europe when it comes to work.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anything over 32 hours should be considered overtime and paid a wage at least 1.5 times higher than the regular one. The absolute limit can be around 48 hours.

Lol academics Europeans.

Even though I agree with him, this seemed more appropriate.

LOL Republicans

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Anything over 32 hours should be considered overtime and paid a wage at least 1.5 times higher than the regular one. The absolute limit can be around 48 hours.

Lol academics Europeans.

Even though I agree with him, this seemed more appropriate.

LOL Republicans

Hey, I'm the one who seriously agrees with you Europeans on the work week and criminal sentencing! America is hideously off-the-mark on both issues.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh sorry, misread your post. I guess it's just LOL Cathcon then.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Oh sorry, misread your post. I guess it's just LOL Cathcon then.

For what? I mean, I can understand a cap at like sixty, though I wouldn't support it. But 48!?

[ElectionsGuy]

No, obviously there should be a plan worked out through employers, but there shouldn't be any laws limiting work hours. I don't see why people shouldn't have the freedom to work extra hours if they want to.

[Maxwell]

That's a stupid idea.