S.20.3-13: Fair Workweek Act (Law'd)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:35:17 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  S.20.3-13: Fair Workweek Act (Law'd)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: S.20.3-13: Fair Workweek Act (Law'd)  (Read 1433 times)
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 31, 2020, 02:44:18 PM »
« edited: September 27, 2020, 11:38:45 AM by tmthforu94 »

Quote
AN ACT
to give families more time to spend with their children and increase productivity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Fair Workweek Act."

Section 2 (Gov't employee five-day workweek flexibility)
i. All government employees of the Southern Region who work five (5) days in a week shall have the option to choose between three (3) plans determining which days of the week they work.
   a. The first plan shall be called Workweek A. Workers who choose this plan must go to work on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays.
   b. The second plan shall be called Workweek B. Workers who choose this plan must go to work on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays.
   c. The second plan shall be called Workweek C. Workers who choose this plan must go to work on Sundays, Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays.
ii. If a regional government employee who works five (5) days in a week requests a different combination of days, whether it be for religious or personal reasons, the government of the Southern Region may permit the employee in question to work on a plan that best fits.

Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect on January 1, 2023.
Sponsor: DTC

Minimum 48 hours for debate. The sponsor is invited to advocate for the bill.
Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,201


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2020, 02:55:25 PM »

The 40 hour workweek is archaic and counterproductive. The extra hour in every day is often not utilized efficiently because there are diminishing returns to work. I believe that we should reduce the workweek to 35 hours so that people have more time to be able to care for their family and pursue other life goals. People who really need to work will be able to benefit from overtime.
Logged
fhtagn
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Vatican City State


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2020, 04:33:34 PM »

The 40 hour workweek is archaic and counterproductive. The extra hour in every day is often not utilized efficiently because there are diminishing returns to work. I believe that we should reduce the workweek to 35 hours so that people have more time to be able to care for their family and pursue other life goals. People who really need to work will be able to benefit from overtime.

Except most jobs where people are absolutely working extra for the money don't allow overtime unless absolutely necessary since it costs their employer too much to pay the overtime rates. All this does it hurt actual working class people, especially those that work for an hourly rate, as it means full time workers get less hours than usual, and part time workers get cut even more so they don't risk accidentally qualifying for full time.
Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,201


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2020, 04:37:07 PM »

The 40 hour workweek is archaic and counterproductive. The extra hour in every day is often not utilized efficiently because there are diminishing returns to work. I believe that we should reduce the workweek to 35 hours so that people have more time to be able to care for their family and pursue other life goals. People who really need to work will be able to benefit from overtime.

Except most jobs where people are absolutely working extra for the money don't allow overtime unless absolutely necessary since it costs their employer too much to pay the overtime rates. All this does it hurt actual working class people, especially those that work for an hourly rate, as it means full time workers get less hours than usual, and part time workers get cut even more so they don't risk accidentally qualifying for full time.

This will give those workers more time to work a second job then.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2020, 04:40:23 PM »

I'm concerned with the current language. Many employers avoid paying overtime at all costs - I have a suspicion that larger companies will get around this by just hiring more people and limiting everyone to 35 hours/week; it is a more cost effective action than paying overtime.

While perhaps good for unemployment, these lost wages could cause much hardship for working families. Assuming someone is making the minimum wage ($11 federally) and working full-time, that would result in a reduction of $2,860 annually (before taxes).

The 40 hour workweek is archaic and counterproductive. The extra hour in every day is often not utilized efficiently because there are diminishing returns to work. I believe that we should reduce the workweek to 35 hours so that people have more time to be able to care for their family and pursue other life goals. People who really need to work will be able to benefit from overtime.

Except most jobs where people are absolutely working extra for the money don't allow overtime unless absolutely necessary since it costs their employer too much to pay the overtime rates. All this does it hurt actual working class people, especially those that work for an hourly rate, as it means full time workers get less hours than usual, and part time workers get cut even more so they don't risk accidentally qualifying for full time.

This will give those workers more time to work a second job then.
It defeats the purpose of this bill if people have to pick up a second job to make up for it, as they'll still be working 40+ hours per week. I imagine just about everyone would prefer doing one job at 40 hours a week as opposed to one at 30-35 and the other at 5-10 hours.
Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,201


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2020, 04:51:47 PM »

I'm concerned with the current language. Many employers avoid paying overtime at all costs - I have a suspicion that larger companies will get around this by just hiring more people and limiting everyone to 35 hours/week; it is a more cost effective action than paying overtime.

While perhaps good for unemployment, these lost wages could cause much hardship for working families. Assuming someone is making the minimum wage ($11 federally) and working full-time, that would result in a reduction of $2,860 annually (before taxes).

The 40 hour workweek is archaic and counterproductive. The extra hour in every day is often not utilized efficiently because there are diminishing returns to work. I believe that we should reduce the workweek to 35 hours so that people have more time to be able to care for their family and pursue other life goals. People who really need to work will be able to benefit from overtime.

Except most jobs where people are absolutely working extra for the money don't allow overtime unless absolutely necessary since it costs their employer too much to pay the overtime rates. All this does it hurt actual working class people, especially those that work for an hourly rate, as it means full time workers get less hours than usual, and part time workers get cut even more so they don't risk accidentally qualifying for full time.

This will give those workers more time to work a second job then.
It defeats the purpose of this bill if people have to pick up a second job to make up for it, as they'll still be working 40+ hours per week. I imagine just about everyone would prefer doing one job at 40 hours a week as opposed to one at 30-35 and the other at 5-10 hours.


Many people will still be able to make enough at 35 hours. For the ones that do not, they can work a second job to supplement their income. People will be more productive at work/hour in a 7 hour workday because they will have more sleep and more time to pursue other interests leading to a happier life. This will also encourage entrepreneurship which has steadily gone down in the past 20 years.
Logged
fhtagn
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Vatican City State


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2020, 04:59:52 PM »

I'm concerned with the current language. Many employers avoid paying overtime at all costs - I have a suspicion that larger companies will get around this by just hiring more people and limiting everyone to 35 hours/week; it is a more cost effective action than paying overtime.

While perhaps good for unemployment, these lost wages could cause much hardship for working families. Assuming someone is making the minimum wage ($11 federally) and working full-time, that would result in a reduction of $2,860 annually (before taxes).

The 40 hour workweek is archaic and counterproductive. The extra hour in every day is often not utilized efficiently because there are diminishing returns to work. I believe that we should reduce the workweek to 35 hours so that people have more time to be able to care for their family and pursue other life goals. People who really need to work will be able to benefit from overtime.

Except most jobs where people are absolutely working extra for the money don't allow overtime unless absolutely necessary since it costs their employer too much to pay the overtime rates. All this does it hurt actual working class people, especially those that work for an hourly rate, as it means full time workers get less hours than usual, and part time workers get cut even more so they don't risk accidentally qualifying for full time.

This will give those workers more time to work a second job then.
It defeats the purpose of this bill if people have to pick up a second job to make up for it, as they'll still be working 40+ hours per week. I imagine just about everyone would prefer doing one job at 40 hours a week as opposed to one at 30-35 and the other at 5-10 hours.


Many people will still be able to make enough at 35 hours. For the ones that do not, they can work a second job to supplement their income. People will be more productive at work/hour in a 7 hour workday because they will have more sleep and more time to pursue other interests leading to a happier life. This will also encourage entrepreneurship which has steadily gone down in the past 20 years.

Forcing people who need money the most to work two jobs. Real smart move.

Always nice to see Labor Party officeholders admit they don't care about workers.

Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,201


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2020, 05:01:52 PM »


Forcing people who need money the most to work two jobs. Real smart move.

Always nice to see Labor Party officeholders admit they don't care about workers.




You will not respond to me in this tone. You will respond to me with calm, reasoned responses when you talk to me.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2020, 05:10:19 PM »

This job doesn't force people to work only 7 hours a day...plenty of people do 10 hours 4 days a week so they can have Friday's off. Saying that most people can afford a cut of nearly $3000/year in income is a narrow-minded view, many in our region live paycheck to paycheck. That amount of money lost will force someone to choose whether to pay groceries or the electric bill.

This job really only affects lower-income citizens - most higher income earners are exempt employees. If they're limited to 35 hours total, 7 each day, what are they supposed to do? Likely have to pick up a job to cover on Saturday/Sunday. This is basically forcing people to work 6 days a week, which IMO is even worse than working 8 hours instead of 7.

I can't support this unless there are more protections for our workers, as this bill is anti-worker in it's current form. Perhaps require employers to provide a paid meal break each day? That is the best workaround I can think off the top of my head, though doesn't necessarily have to do with the workweek.
Logged
fhtagn
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Vatican City State


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2020, 05:12:57 PM »

Forcing people who need money the most to work two jobs. Real smart move.

Always nice to see Labor Party officeholders admit they don't care about workers.




You will not respond to me in this tone. You will respond to me with calm, reasoned responses when you talk to me.

I will respond to you however I see fit, especially when you are proving my statement is correct.

But hey, I can go with racism and misogyny from Labor officeholders too if you'd like.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2020, 06:08:49 PM »

Let’s keep discussion focused on the merits of the bill being debated. Thanks.
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2020, 06:58:29 PM »
« Edited: August 31, 2020, 07:54:35 PM by #JokeMala »

This is a very fair and plausible course of action. I do not see a problem with this legislation, as we should treat our workers well and overtime pay is one way to accomplish that.
Logged
fhtagn
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Vatican City State


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2020, 09:15:18 PM »

This is a very fair and plausible course of action. I do not see a problem with this legislation, as we should treat our workers well and overtime pay is one way to accomplish that.

Once again, the vast majority of jobs aren't going to offer overtime.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2020, 10:54:47 PM »

At this point, I haven't been convinced in the merits of this bill - this loss of income would have a tremendous effect on many in the region and there is really no plan in place on how that income would be supplemented. I'm not sure of an amendment that would solve the problem. I'd be open to any proposals to better protect working families, but I will vote Nay on the current version.
Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2020, 02:16:04 PM »

I'm inclined to support an amended version of this if it implements some sort of income support scheme to supplement lost income for workers who might struggle with this change. I agree with DTC's main argument about the need to give people more time off and the massive social benefits that come from this, including the chance to spend more time with friends, family members and to rest.

One thing that DTC mentioned is that productivity will increase. Its well documented that overworked workers are not as productive as workers who have more time off. That also means that while hours are reduced, the hourly rate of pay can go up. Add to that, union power to put pressure on employers who might use this as an excuse to massively reduce pay for their employees and most evidence I see points to a small decrease in wages but I think one small enough that we can afford to supplement. Also add to that the impact of automation, I think that a shorter working week is affordable if done right.

However, the issue of lost income is still a big concern, and something that we absolutely have to address before passing this. We could set up income support that pays employees a regular amount to make up for any lost income funded by a robot tax or some other sort of tax on automation so the benefits of that productivity can go back to people who need it.

There is also an issue of how we deal with certain sectors where adapting will be more difficult. For example, when France reduced its work week hospitals struggled to find new employees because it was more difficult to get productivity gains and because being a medical professional requires more specific qualifications so they can't just bring on a few more people to fill up gaps in working time. We'll have to provide more flexibility to sectors where the number of available workers is less or where productivity is less likely to increase.

Also, there needs to be some sort of phase in. Implementing a reduced work week immediately on the Governor's signature wouldn't give businesses or workers much time to prepare. A longer phase in would allow businesses to gradually reduce their work week over time and negotiate the terms of this with workers and unions.
Logged
diptheriadan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,371


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2020, 07:09:24 PM »

Getting to the crux of the issue here, would this actually benefit people? Would this help the economy? I'm thinking about this, and granted here I am an idiot, but i'm just not seeing how this bill does anything outside of creating more jobs that don't pay enough.

Regardless I don't favor creating any sort of program to supplement people's income. If such a measure is necessary, this bill is obviously a failure and should be voted against.   
Logged
GM Team Member and Senator WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,628
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2020, 10:41:29 PM »

yeah, I like the idea of giving people an extra hour per day, which would almost certainly help communities as a whole, but I actually agree with fhtagn for once. People are still living paycheck to paycheck. This would take 1/8 of their income away with no plan to get it back.

Unions could help fight to have companies pay their workers the same amount as before over the week, but that's still not guaranteed considering that the greed of some individuals is astronomical.

The idea of giving people that extra hour is great, but I don't think they'd appreciate their paycheck being cut by over 10%.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2020, 03:27:00 PM »

I don't agree with this bill but am going to introduce the following amendment as I think it is necessary for businesses to prepare, regardless of feelings on Section 2.

Quote
AN ACT
to give families more time to spend with their children and increase productivity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Fair Workweek Act."


Section 2 (Workweek reduction)
i. The workweek shall be reduced from 40 hours to 35 hours.
ii. Unless exempt, employees covered by the Act must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 35 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay.

Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect immediately upon signature by the Governor on January 1, 2021.
24 hours for objections.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2020, 06:35:05 PM »

no objection
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2020, 04:10:12 PM »

Debate resumes, amendment is adopted.
Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,679
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -4.42, S: 1.82

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2020, 07:25:24 PM »

I'll propose a slower implementation. Most countries that have implemented a similar policy have allowed 2-4 years. This allows more time for businesses to prepare and for workers and unions to negotiate a fairer arrangement.

Quote
AN ACT
to give families more time to spend with their children and increase productivity

Section 1 (Title & Definitions)
i. The title of this act shall be, the “Fair Workweek Act."


Section 2 (Workweek reduction)
i. The workweek shall be reduced from 40 hours to 35 hours.
ii. Unless exempt, employees covered by the Act must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 35 in a workweek at a rate not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay.

Section 3 (Implementation)
i. This legislation shall come into effect on January 1, 20213.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2020, 10:30:56 PM »

24 hours for objections.
Logged
reagente
Atlas Politician
Jr. Member
*****
Posts: 1,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.10, S: 4.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2020, 11:51:12 PM »

My understanding for part of why a 40 hour work week was adopted was because 8 hours a day neatly translates to 3 shifts a day for companies that operate 24/7.

I think a move to 7 hours a day would complicate that structure. I suppose in theory a 6 hour work day could work, but I think a 30 hour work week is too dramatic of a change.

I support the status quo, and will probably be opposing this legislation
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,138
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2020, 07:14:53 AM »

The amendment was adopted.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2020, 12:43:46 PM »

Does anyone have an amendment? There have been concerns brought up on the financial impact this will have on workers if they're only being paid 35 hours, I personally don't have a solution to fix this and am not sure any sort of subsidization would gain my vote in the end.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 13 queries.