TOPICS:
A 32-Hour Work Week
Mar 22, 2024 / Written by: Gary Isbell
A Paradigm Shift Toward Socialism
Imagine a utopia where you work 32 hours but get paid for 40! Now, the four-day workweek has been proposed and is gaining momentum in the Senate. It is not about working harder during fewer days but about redistributing wealth by taking from those whose contribution is more valuable and giving it to those whose is less.
A four-day workweek is not just a trend but a paradigm shift in how we work.
It started with the United Auto Workers Union’s (UAW) demand for a 32-hour workweek with 40 hours of pay and has spurred on the proposed bill. Socialists of every stripe are now clamoring for less work with the same pay. The UAW’s argument is based in part on the rapid development of AI and automation. The question not being asked by those clamoring for a free lunch is why employees should be rewarded for the work robots are doing or, who invested in, developed, and implemented AI and automation that increased efficiency and profits.
Senator Bernie Sanders, a professed socialist, proposed a 32-hour workweek during a committee hearing while attempting to gloss over the negative impacts on workers and businesses. Sanders struggled to justify his proposal by highlighting alleged productivity gains from international experiments with shorter work weeks in other countries. He emphasized the need for manual workers to share in the benefits of technological advancements and get some well-deserved rest but conveniently failed to mention the findings from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, led by Sanders, looked into the proposal of a four-day workweek amidst discussions on advanced technology and productivity developments. He advocated for a reduced workweek with the same pay and introduced a bill to gradually lower the overtime threshold to 32 hours instead of 40, claiming it would boost productivity.
Though Sanders appeared to be supporting the workers, he was essentially employing a strategy right out of Marx's playbook by advocating the redistribution of wealth. This was a veiled attempt to implement the economic dynamics found within the Socialist Soviet Republic. A system that revolves around three core economic tenets: egalitarianism, centralization, and the distribution of wealth. Sanders essentially wants to take from the rich and give to the poor because he feels that no one has the right to be wealthy.
Ranking Member Bill Cassidy (R-La.) cautioned against the proposal warning that enforcing a 32-hour workweek with a 25 percent pay increase per hour could cripple employers. He raised concerns about job outsourcing, automation, and increased part-time hiring if the policy is implemented, especially how it will impact small businesses.
The debate, as framed by Sanders, is: Should technology's advancements only benefit the elite? He does not define “elite” and implies that anyone who is successful in business is not entitled to the fruits of their labor, intellectual or physical.
Sanders questions what he sees as an unjust benefit business owners, developers, and investors receive for their hard work, much of which is intellectual, not manual. He attempts to put all contributions to success on equal footing. By cleverly avoiding this topic, he implies that no one has a right to profit proportionally from his contribution.
Sanders argument is more than ironic given that his adjusted gross income for 2018 was $561,2931 which averages $269.85 per hour, while he was still paying his field organizers $13.00 per hour in 2019. 2
The U.S. is an equal-opportunity country that allows anyone, including the manual laborers Sanders feigns to represent, to invent or improve technology and reap the benefits. Over 70 percent of the U.S. job economy involves manual labor, and these hard-working individuals take risks to create businesses or spend time in meetings to administrate, direct, or develop strategies and goals to be successful.
One does not need to be an economist to understand the outcome of Sanders’ proposal. If a company could find a way to survive, the additional cost of doing business would be passed on to the consumer; much like raising the minimum wage, it would increase the cost of living for everyone.
Senator Mike Braun (R-Ind.) suggested that larger companies could voluntarily offer shorter work hours to attract employees. Still, he expressed concerns about the negative impact on retail and small businesses. However, this idea does not address the additional financial burden of operating a business under these constraints, and it somehow suggests that a large company can shoulder these costs and still be profitable without passing on the added expense to the consumer.
Sanders's socialist utopia would sound something like this:
Employees would enjoy a healthier work-life balance without any financial sacrifice. A shorter workweek might boost productivity and creativity, hopefully making it attractive for a future workforce.
Employers imagine an environment brimming with perks, such as heightened productivity, happier staff, greater loyalty, reduced turnovers, and the ability to attract top talent.
Disadvantages for employers can manifest in various ways. Here are a few examples to consider:
Productivity Concerns: Shortening the workweek seldom increases productivity. For instance, in settings like assembly lines, where the line speed remains constant regardless of individual performance, reducing workdays or hours by 20 percent may result in a corresponding 20 percent drop in productivity per worker.
Staffing Challenges: Transitioning to a shorter week would most likely necessitate a 25 percent rise in staffing levels. In continuous operations like a 24/7 refinery running with four crews, reducing each crew's weekly hours from 42 to 32 would require over five crews, marking a 25 percent increase in staffing demand. Many occupations, such as cashiers, waiters, teachers, policemen, hotel staff, firemen and anyone in the service or retail industries, do not allow 40 hours of work to be incorporated into 32 hours. A fireman cannot spend less time putting out fires to accommodate a 32-hour workweek!
Cost Implications: Due to increased hiring needs, including associated benefits like healthcare, paid holidays, vacation time, insurance and labor, expenses may surge by up to 25 percent in some industries. Even if labor is abundant, a paper mill will have to recruit 25 percent more personnel, thus significantly escalating wage and benefits expenditures.
Employee Preferences: Industry surveys focusing on blue-collar sectors reveal a divide in preferences regarding shorter workweeks. While around 20 percent of employees desire more time off and less overtime, another 20 percent seek additional overtime hours and less time off. While a shorter workweek may aid in recruiting some new talent, it could alienate valued long-term employees if overtime opportunities diminish.
The socialist ruling class in France imposed the 35-hour workweek as economic policy in 2,000 by Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, but it has not worked out as planned, producing many unexpected negative impacts according to a study conducted by the IMF.
- The implementation of a 35-hour workweek did not increase overall employment for workers directly impacted by the law; rather, it resulted in a reduction.
- Workers in large firms sought second jobs in smaller firms where the law was implemented later.
- Hourly wages rose in large firms.
- Large companies hired more unemployed workers than small firms post-law, increasing job turnover.
- Most importantly, French workers didn't experience increased happiness after a reduction in the workweek, as liberals touted, based on surveys.
In fact, most companies are hesitant to entertain this idea due to cost concerns. If a company wishes to do so, they may, but no legislation is needed to alter what has been working well for decades.
Although many blue-collar workers are interested in a 32-hour workweek, they do not shoulder the responsibility and cost of operating a company. The UAW's attempt to demand a 40 percent increase in wages and a 32-hour workweek and having had to settle for much less showcases how this idea is fraught with problems.
In today's interconnected world, hiring talent globally has never been easier, therefore, harming the very people Sanders claims to be helping. The argument against compelling businesses to pay for decreased productivity extends beyond workers' benefits; it will fuel inflation, increase reliance on automation and reduce job opportunities.
An example of this was the EU raising the minimum wage, and McDonald’s responded by installing ordering kiosks throughout Europe, eliminating thousands of entry-level jobs because of socialist mandates.
Moreover, proposing a 32-hour workweek for a 40-hour wage is akin to a government handout. As a politician who does not run a business and lives off of taxpayer money, Sanders refuses to accept that there is no free lunch. Socialistic policies will lead to job losses and inflation spikes, as demonstrated by every country that has implemented them.
Employers and employees have already successfully collaborated to optimize schedules for efficient product and service delivery. However, changing the definition of the workweek is a solution in search of a problem that has already been solved.
References:
