Wisconsin brings the freedumb: Free to work 7days/week

[werepossum]

I generally enjoy my work. I work overtime when it's available, and I would probably work every day if that's what it took to complete a job.

The main laws I want the government to keep are:
-hours over 40 are overtime
-3 hours is the minimum number of hours paid at a time (sending you home after 20 minutes = pay for 3 hours)

Outside of that, companies should do whatever they want. If you want your employees working 3 hour shifts, 7 days per week, that should be allowed. Most people will quit the job, and the Free Market will fix that problem with either higher wages or better work schedules.

Ideologically and in theory I agree completely. Practically speaking, encroachment from higher legal immigration, illegal immigration, automation, and increased off-shoring may make this problematic. Just as with wages, an over-supply of labor can make people take conditions they would not even consider in a tight labor market.

 

[trenchfoot]

The Air Guard unit I was in is still running a four day 10 hr. day/night shift and that's been going on for years with great success and is much appreciated by those that are in it.

Productivity actually increased with this work schedule.

A three day weekend every week and four day weekends with holidays is, IMO, something more companies should look into.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ideologically and in theory I agree completely. Practically speaking, encroachment from higher legal immigration, illegal immigration, automation, and increased off-shoring may make this problematic. Just as with wages, an over-supply of labor can make people take conditions they would not even consider in a tight labor market.

IOW, any potential for abuse will be exploited. That's unsurprising, given human history.

 

[Brainonska511]

I generally enjoy my work. I work overtime when it's available, and I would probably work every day if that's what it took to complete a job.

The main laws I want the government to keep are:
-hours over 40 are overtime
-3 hours is the minimum number of hours paid at a time (sending you home after 20 minutes = pay for 3 hours)

Outside of that, companies should do whatever they want. If you want your employees working 3 hour shifts, 7 days per week, that should be allowed. Most people will quit the job, and the Free Market will fix that problem with either higher wages or better work schedules.

I think you overestimate the power of the free market and the employer-employee relationship. The latter is generally one of very unequal power, especially for individuals with low mobility (ie people with not enough capital to move to another job). If someone's barely making ends meet as it is, you think they will stand up to their employer when they get scheduled for 7 days in a row for very short shifts?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Not for me. I'm 60 and do not have an issue with the hours getting longer or harder. Working 12 hour shifts Sat and Sun.

Sorry, I want to spend time living my life and not consistently working 50+ hours a week. I have some 60+ hour work weeks headed my way in a couple of months, but I knew I'd be crushed between Sept and Dec, beyond that, 40 - 50 hour weeks are the norm.

Companies have been "Leaning down" (read make 1 person do the work of 1.5 or 2 people) for decades now and it makes it very trying. I understand they need to keep profits up and expenses down, but to what end?

 

[Jhhnn]

I understand they need to keep profits up and expenses down, but to what end?

It's like "Hoarders", just on a much grander scale. It's a disease.

 

[ivwshane]

Sorry, I want to spend time living my life and not consistently working 50+ hours a week. I have some 60+ hour work weeks headed my way in a couple of months, but I knew I'd be crushed between Sept and Dec, beyond that, 40 - 50 hour weeks are the norm.

Companies have been "Leaning down" (read make 1 person do the work of 1.5 or 2 people) for decades now and it makes it very trying. I understand they need to keep profits up and expenses down, but to what end?

That's because you value your life whereas his life is worthless. He doesn't mind slaving away for his corporate master because he's got nothing else to do nor does he have anything going for him.

 

[Spungo]

I think you overestimate the power of the free market and the employer-employee relationship. The latter is generally one of very unequal power, especially for individuals with low mobility (ie people with not enough capital to move to another job). If someone's barely making ends meet as it is, you think they will stand up to their employer when they get scheduled for 7 days in a row for very short shifts?

There might be a lack of mobility if you live in a rural area, but an overwhelming majority of Americans live in urban areas. Just get a job next door if the current job is so terrible.

 

[MongGrel]

You have to keep in mind that as you get older and the more decades you work, the hours get longer and harder.



I live in a "right to work" state too, and I don't think it's right that you can be fired on a whim. The employer isn't even required to give a reason here.

This.

Right to work states are the right to fuck you up the ass on a whim.

 

[MongGrel]

Not for me. I'm 60 and do not have an issue with the hours getting longer or harder. Working 12 hour shifts Sat and Sun.

It works both ways. You can also quit on a whim. All of the Quality employers still have an escalation process they are required to step through before they actually let you go.

bull shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

There might be a lack of mobility if you live in a rural area, but an overwhelming majority of Americans live in urban areas. Just get a job next door if the current job is so terrible.

You assume that jobs aren't scarce, that people won't take a lot of shit to keep the one they have.

You assume wrong.

 

[bshole]

I don't see the outrage about this... Something they were already doing... Some people want to work 7 days a week.

...for $7.25/hr. Full speed to the bottom.....

 

[Spungo]

You assume that jobs aren't scarce, that people won't take a lot of shit to keep the one they have.

You assume wrong.

Then maybe we should stop trying to make them scarce. Under the current laws, hiring someone is one of the riskiest things you can do. So many things can go wrong. Should you hire a woman? If you do, she might get pregnant and take maternity leave. During that time, you are not allowed to fire her. If she gets offended by something said by anyone in the company, the company can be sued for sexual harassment and discrimination. Even if she loses the case, you still need to pay to defend against these lawsuits. If you hire a man instead of a woman, you get sued for discrimination. The solution is to not hire anyone unless it's absolutely necessary. Don't dare hire a disabled person. A guy claims he can't walk up the stairs, so your business needs an elevator. You can't afford to build an elevator for 1 person who might quit the next day, so you try to fire the person. Now you're really fucked. You fired someone because they are disabled. You'll be lucky if your business isn't sued into bankruptcy.

The current mood of the country is that employers are evil, so lawsuits almost always favor the employee. This leads to a shortage of employers and a surplus of employees. A lot of our economic problems are self-inflicted.

 

[trenchfoot]

Then maybe we should stop trying to make them scarce. Under the current laws, hiring someone is one of the riskiest things you can do. So many things can go wrong. Should you hire a woman? If you do, she might get pregnant and take maternity leave. During that time, you are not allowed to fire her. If she gets offended by something said by anyone in the company, the company can be sued for sexual harassment and discrimination. Even if she loses the case, you still need to pay to defend against these lawsuits. If you hire a man instead of a woman, you get sued for discrimination. The solution is to not hire anyone unless it's absolutely necessary. Don't dare hire a disabled person. A guy claims he can't walk up the stairs, so your business needs an elevator. You can't afford to build an elevator for 1 person who might quit the next day, so you try to fire the person. Now you're really fucked. You fired someone because they are disabled. You'll be lucky if your business isn't sued into bankruptcy.

The current mood of the country is that employers are evil, so lawsuits almost always favor the employee. This leads to a shortage of employers and a surplus of employees. A lot of our economic problems are self-inflicted.

Although there is truth in what you've posted, from my experience as a former business agent for a local union that represents the interests of at least a dozen different companies for 20+ years, I am convinced that Management have, had and always will have the upper hand in their dealings with their employees. This, for the simple fact that Management has so many more "tools" to utilize than the employee does, especially in the area of dictating company policies and the manipulation of the shady grey areas of those policies that, naturally, are authored in their favor. I'm mostly referring to those policies that, although they satisfy the letter of the law, Management is given wide berth as to the discretionary interpretation of said laws, as well as those other company policies that seem to live on the razor's edge of legality.

 

[sm625]

With the unions broken I predict a lot of new "mangers" stocking shelves on random 4 hour shifts, 7 days a week.
But hey it's voluntary so no chance this gets abused.

WTF is a manger? And yes, that's right, it is voluntary. There is no motive for an employer to try and game his schedule in such a way as to require 7 day workweeks. Why do that? Dont forget that obamacare already eviscerated workers rights by forcing so many workers onto part time work schedules to avoid having to provide health care coverage. So why in the world would any employer want to work a part time employee 7 days a week?

 

[Spungo]

Although there is truth in what you've posted, from my experience as a former business agent for a local union that represents the interests of at least a dozen different companies for 20+ years, I am convinced that Management have, had and always will have the upper hand in their dealings with their employees.

You must live in an economically depressed area.

When the economy is doing ok, employers are very limited in what they can get away with. I've seen non-union people collectively walk off the job because they didn't like the work conditions (it was hot and humid). Were they fired? Nope, they would be difficult to replace, and we needed this thing fixed as quickly as possible.

 

[Jhhnn]

WTF is a manger? And yes, that's right, it is voluntary. There is no motive for an employer to try and game his schedule in such a way as to require 7 day workweeks. Why do that? Dont forget that obamacare already eviscerated workers rights by forcing so many workers onto part time work schedules to avoid having to provide health care coverage. So why in the world would any employer want to work a part time employee 7 days a week?

Perhaps you can provide evidence in support of the claim about the ACA "forcing" workers onto part time schedules?

Or is that just something you believe?

 

[Jhhnn]

Then maybe we should stop trying to make them scarce. Under the current laws, hiring someone is one of the riskiest things you can do. So many things can go wrong. Should you hire a woman? If you do, she might get pregnant and take maternity leave. During that time, you are not allowed to fire her. If she gets offended by something said by anyone in the company, the company can be sued for sexual harassment and discrimination. Even if she loses the case, you still need to pay to defend against these lawsuits. If you hire a man instead of a woman, you get sued for discrimination. The solution is to not hire anyone unless it's absolutely necessary. Don't dare hire a disabled person. A guy claims he can't walk up the stairs, so your business needs an elevator. You can't afford to build an elevator for 1 person who might quit the next day, so you try to fire the person. Now you're really fucked. You fired someone because they are disabled. You'll be lucky if your business isn't sued into bankruptcy.

The current mood of the country is that employers are evil, so lawsuits almost always favor the employee. This leads to a shortage of employers and a surplus of employees. A lot of our economic problems are self-inflicted.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your original assertion is predicated on the false assumption that jobs are easy to come by. Confronted about that, you veer off into a tangential rant about poor picked on employers.

 

[Paratus]

WTF is a manger? And yes, that's right, it is voluntary. There is no motive for an employer to try and game his schedule in such a way as to require 7 day workweeks. Why do that? Dont forget that obamacare already eviscerated workers rights by forcing so many workers onto part time work schedules to avoid having to provide health care coverage. So why in the world would any employer want to work a part time employee 7 days a week?

You know "associates", "team members", whatever they call employees so they can avoid hourly overtime.

And many business are using just in time scheduling so they have just enough people to cover shifts. Which means erratic schedules and no time to get or look for a second job, let alone deal with family schedules. "Volunteering" ha, to work 7 days straight just makes it that much worse.

Part-time and low-wage employees today are increasingly at the mercy of “just-in-time scheduling,” which uses a computer algorithm to create an employee schedule based on predicting customer demand, driven by factors such as time of day, season, weather, or even a nearby sporting event. Retail and service industries are the most avid users of just-in-time scheduling—the very industries in which workers already face a lack of benefits, poor working conditions, and insufficient pay.

This use of “workplace optimization systems” ensures that stores have a correct number of workers on an hourly basis, yet wreaks havoc on workers, who have no control over their erratic schedule. Workers’ “just-in-time” schedules change from day to day, and they typically receive only three days’ notice of their schedule for the coming week. Employees are often obliged to be “on call,” seeing their shift canceled only a couple hours before it is meant to begin. Workers may arrive at work only to be sent home, which is particularly burdensome for the working poor, who commit more time and a greater portion of their income to commuting.

 

[ivwshane]

I think he was trying to make fun of your spelling (manger vs manager).

You know "associates", "team members", whatever they call employees so they can avoid hourly overtime.

And many business are using just in time scheduling so they have just enough people to cover shifts. Which means erratic schedules and no time to get or look for a second job, let alone deal with family schedules. "Volunteering" ha, to work 7 days straight just makes it that much worse.

 

[Paratus]

I think he was trying to make fun of your spelling (manger vs manager).

:$

I blame Steve Jobs.
And I'm sticking to that.

 

[Spungo]

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your original assertion is predicated on the false assumption that jobs are easy to come by. Confronted about that, you veer off into a tangential rant about poor picked on employers.

I'm pointing out how your position is logically inconsistent. You complain that work conditions are terrible, and then you do everything possible to ensure that work conditions remain terrible.