Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday introduced a bill to establish a standard four-day workweek in the United States without any reduction in pay. The bill, over a four-year period, would lowe…
Yes! And the closer you get to zero the more we approach infinite roofs per hour, because that’s the way it works with humans, you simply multiply and divide and add and subtract, it’s really that easy, I wonder why people make it so complicated and add in completely unnecessary stuff like health and well being? /s
What I’m saying is you can’t just count the beans.
Fewer work hours are recouped in a number of ways, like less sick leave and higher efficiency, maybe not 100%, but experience seems to show that a pretty significant part is. So “as efficient” is not true.
Of course you can’t do this indefinitely, but you can increase efficiency most places by going down from 40.
I think you can count the beans. You’ll have less injuries better quality work and a better product or service overall.
One workplace injury over the life span of a business would save all the costs of the lower hours / same pay
Edit: I work in a large organization. Someone hurt themselves. The payout was so large that the bosses realized they could pay for more than hundreds of dollars of safety equipment per worker per year for the entire organization and still save money if it avoided one accident.
So a roofer will be able to put on more roofs if they work less hours?
Yes! And the closer you get to zero the more we approach infinite roofs per hour, because that’s the way it works with humans, you simply multiply and divide and add and subtract, it’s really that easy, I wonder why people make it so complicated and add in completely unnecessary stuff like health and well being? /s
You can be snarky if you wish, but I am just pointing out the flaws in the idea that if you lower hours people will be as efficient.
What I’m saying is you can’t just count the beans.
Fewer work hours are recouped in a number of ways, like less sick leave and higher efficiency, maybe not 100%, but experience seems to show that a pretty significant part is. So “as efficient” is not true.
Of course you can’t do this indefinitely, but you can increase efficiency most places by going down from 40.
I think you can count the beans. You’ll have less injuries better quality work and a better product or service overall.
One workplace injury over the life span of a business would save all the costs of the lower hours / same pay
Edit: I work in a large organization. Someone hurt themselves. The payout was so large that the bosses realized they could pay for more than hundreds of dollars of safety equipment per worker per year for the entire organization and still save money if it avoided one accident.
I could agree with you if we are talking about 80 hours/ week , but 40 hour is totally doable and not really even many hours to work.
As far as efficiency goes, that is an issue with companies that are enable to be inefficient by government controls and influences.
Yes, many labor jobs would have large quality improvements if their workers worked less hours