File this under: "Not very good ideas for business in California."
The legislature in California is seriously considering making the workweek 1 day shorter to appeal to the less industrious generation of workers on the left coast.
From the Wall Street Journal:
A proposal in the California State Legislature would define the workweek in the state as 32 hours, not 40, for larger companies. By the end of next week, the California State Assembly's Labor and Employment Committee is expected to decide if the bill will move forward. While the proposal is still many steps away from becoming law, if passed, the bill could affect more than 2,000 businesses.
I personally know many hard-working Americans who would KILL for a 40-hour workweek.
Many people are having to work multiple jobs now just in order to keep the bills paid, working 70-80 hours a week. But in ultra-left California it seems that your "normal" 40 hours at a cushy desk job may be too much to ask.
Man, are we getting soft.
California is home to many of the world's largest tech companies and is the most-populous state in the U.S., with around 39 million residents. If passed, Bill AB 2932 would define a workweek as 32 hours for private-sector companies with more than 500 employees. Hourly employees who log more time would need to be paid time-and-a-half for
So, if you're salaried you can put in 1/5 fewer hours and make the same amount of money, and if you are paid by the hour you can make even more money for doing the same amount of work you're already doing.
This might sound nice if you're in the California assembly, but if you're a company that has to foot the bill it's not going to be good for your bottom line.
Earlier this month the California Chamber of Commerce added the bill to its "job killer list," saying the legislation would significantly increase labor costs.
Requiring businesses to pay the same amount of money for one less day of work won't end well should the bill pass, said Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford University economics professor.
"Jobs will shift to Nevada or Oregon, and employers will not be able to raise pay for many years," he said. A better alternative for businesses and shift workers who have to do work in person, he said, would be longer hours spread out across fewer days, with workers benefiting from not having to commute as much.
It'll be more affordable for companies to move jobs to neighboring states with less regulation, lower taxes, and a 40-hour workweek than it would be to foot the bill for the reduced work hours.
The Stanford economics professor, Bloom, does have an interesting compromise: A 4-day workweek but maintaining 40 hours of work. So workers get their extra weekend day and employers don't have to pay more for fewer hours.
I could see something like that working.
The concept of a four-day workweek is unsurprisingly popular among workers. A survey of more than 1,000 workers conducted by Qualtrics, a cloud software company, found that 92% of people would support working a four-day week and that 37% would be willing to take a 5% reduction in pay in exchange for the schedule change. Many also acknowledged the drawbacks, with nearly three-quarters saying they would end up working longer hours anyway.
Of course, even if you work less, businesses are still going to demand a similar amount of output, which would just mean more stress while you're at work.
I'm all for quality leisure time, but isn't 2 days a week enough for these Californians?
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
