I hate the 40 hour work week law

Whether there is something wrong with salaried workers putting in more than forty hours a week or not, reminders that laws limiting how much an employer can force workers to work are as relevant now as they were 150 years ago.

Yeah but arguing for laws because some factory workers worked 100 hour weeks for low wages in 1830 is not relevant in 2019.

Hardloper wrote:

Joe Hill wrote:

So someone's economic situation from 150 years ago is still relevant today.

There's nothing wrong with salaried workers putting in more than 40 hours in a week

Where is this magical "okay" line for number of hours per week? 40? 10? 80? The answer is: as far as companies can push it.

The designation of "exempt" used to be reserved for higher earners in practice. Now, it's as far as companies can push the envelope. I know someone who has made from $25k-30k/yr over the last ~5 years working 60+ hours per week plus one weekend day which he varies. I think he's a workaholic moron (but a good guy). However, the fact that companies (and his direct supervisor) allow that behavior and legislatures go along with the corporate status quo (and somehow people like yourself seem okay with it) really is mind blowing.

After a certain point, it is simply wage theft and taking advantage of vulnerable people. But whatever. If it's good for the free market, it's good for freedom.... Somehow... Magically.

Magic 40 hours wrote:

Where is this magical "okay" line for number of hours per week? 40? 10? 80? The answer is: as far as companies can push it.

The designation of "exempt" used to be reserved for higher earners in practice. Now, it's as far as companies can push the envelope. I know someone who has made from $25k-30k/yr over the last ~5 years working 60+ hours per week plus one weekend day which he varies. I think he's a workaholic moron (but a good guy). However, the fact that companies (and his direct supervisor) allow that behavior and legislatures go along with the corporate status quo (and somehow people like yourself seem okay with it) really is mind blowing.

After a certain point, it is simply wage theft and taking advantage of vulnerable people. But whatever. If it's good for the free market, it's good for freedom.... Somehow... Magically.

You go into your job with knowledge of industry norms and company culture. Working class people aren't as dumb and clueless as you seem to think we are.

There's no magic line. People can work as much as they choose and ever since they passed the 13th Amendment, they can quit if they don't like it. So what if a few people are workaholics. There are far worse problems one can have and it would be ludicrous to have a law to prohibit it. You should probably be thankful there are doctors and others whose skills are in limited supply are willing to work long hours.

Your priveledge is showing. I worked a factory job and ranged 90-115 hours two months in a row with a continuing culture endlessly encouraging it. Salary worker here (however, I'll admit the company made it "right" and gave me a bonus... Though the hourly mechanics and instrumentation folks doing the same overtime went out and bought $60k trucks... Good on them but I'll admit a small amount of jealousy).

The point is, it still exists. All of us went through miniature breakdowns, some got divorced, the toughest man I knew in that job broke down and cried uncontrollably one day from the stress. I'll never forget that.

I'm summary, the 40 hour workweek was formed not just based on wages. In addition, since you're an internet hard man, here's someone else you can read it from, though you obviously won't listen since it appears you are a strong advocate of 40+ hours of work for salaried employees:

I don't know any doctors making $30k per year.

Hardloper wrote:

Yeah but arguing for laws because some factory workers worked 100 hour weeks for low wages in 1830 is not relevant in 2019.

What has happened in those 150 years to make you believe that companies would not force workers to 60 or more hour work weeks today if they could do it legally?

I am working class... Just because you know what you are getting into doesn't mean you have to like it.

Magic 40 hours wrote:

I don't need your protection wrote:

You go into your job with knowledge of industry norms and company culture. Working class people aren't as dumb and clueless as you seem to think we are.

I am working class... Just because you know what you are getting into doesn't mean you have to like it.

If I don't like it, I'll do something else.

Ummmm... okay. Become self employed and work more. For example becaome a lawyer and start your own practice. Boom. Work as many hours as you damn well please.

get rid of liberals wrote:

If it was up to me, I would work 65 hours a week. 10 hours a day, 13 out of 14 days. Very few employers allow hourly employees to work more than 40 hours due to laws that mandate 150% pay beyond that. Supposedly the labor movement is doing hourly workers a huge favor by placing these constraints on our employers. All they're doing is forcing me to sit around for two days a week with nothing to do when I should be working and making more money. "Oh but some people have families and don't want to work more than 40 hours." -- then let them seek jobs that don't require them to work more than that. Let people decide for themselves how much they're willing to work.

Hardloper wrote:

sbeefyk2 wrote:

If you worked 65 hour weeks for the same pay you'd complain you want to be able to work less or get paid more.

And, read some history books. Prior to labor laws you had people working in factories making 2-3 cents per hour and working 14 hour days. 100 degree days with no air conditioning. They'd work until exhaustion and still not have enough money to feed their families.

It's 2019 dude. Someone's economic situation 150 years ago is irrelevant to today's laws.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Damn...you on Fi-yah!

Hardloper wrote:

Yeah but arguing for laws because some factory workers worked 100 hour weeks for low wages in 1830 is not relevant in 2019.

Just because you can't understand the relevance doesn't mean there isn't one.

Just curious, exactly which year would you consider historical precedent to begin to be relevant?

Do you think Constitutional Amendments passed in the 1800's are no longer relevant either?

It's funny that you cite the 13th amendment, from 1865, to justify no longer needing protective laws to protect us from the situations of the 1830's.

Times have changed. A big reason for those changes is the protective laws that were passed.

Do you believe you would have gotten the same amount of work done and thus deserved the same salary if you had worked 40 hours a week instead of 100? If so then you should have shown your manager this article and not me. I'm all for working only the hours you want or need to.

Hardloper wrote:

Do you believe you would have gotten the same amount of work done and thus deserved the same salary if you had worked 40 hours a week instead of 100? If so then you should have shown your manager this article and not me. I'm all for working only the hours you want or need to.

First of all, most people on a salary are not being paid a salary for 100 hours. They are being paid for 40. So your logic is reversed.

Secondly, a lot of jobs don't have a very clearly defined 'need to.' If you complete 50 hours worth of work in 40 hours, plenty of bosses are all too willing to see if they can get 60 hours of work out of you in 50...or 70 hours of work in 60.

I work in an industry that sees a lot of transfers between overseas companies/branches and US companies. There are not mandatory OT pay laws in the overseas branches (UK). As a result, it's very common practice for workers to sign a contract for "8 hours a day...up to 10 when needed" and then end up working 10 hour days every single day for months on end, for no added pay. It's easy to say "well just quit", but if the law allows this practice, then almost every company will take advantage of it and you don't really have a choice but to accept it.

Our OT laws work. If we repealed them, it's very clear in my industry that the worker would lose out, as evidenced by the practices of our overseas branches.

For the most part, we need to encourage people to work less hours in this country, not more.

get rid of liberals wrote:

If it was up to me, I would work 65 hours a week. 10 hours a day, 13 out of 14 days. Very few employers allow hourly employees to work more than 40 hours due to laws that mandate 150% pay beyond that. Supposedly the labor movement is doing hourly workers a huge favor by placing these constraints on our employers. All they're doing is forcing me to sit around for two days a week with nothing to do when I should be working and making more money. "Oh but some people have families and don't want to work more than 40 hours." -- then let them seek jobs that don't require them to work more than that. Let people decide for themselves how much they're willing to work.

It should be 4 hours per day. And 20 hours per week max.

But due to dumb humans it's 40.

Yeah because that makes sense. You need 8 hours of sleep. An hour to and from work sometimes. Why not waste 11 hours of a 24 hour day revolving around work.

Makes sense to me everyone. Yay!

Just goes to show how dumb geeks and twinks really are.

Idontseeyoursweatyet wrote:

40 hours should do it if you are working hard.

I agree. I work in software and my profession has a culture of overwork. Except my department now rarely has anyone putting in more than 45 hours in a seven day period. I adopted Agile as a methodology and adjusted the expectations of the business to accept the reality that IT capacity is not infinite. I tell them that we can only produce a set amount of work in a cycle. If they really want more work to be done, then they need to justify hiring more help. No short term contractors because the cost to continually train them is waisted effort and reduces existing capacity.

My turnover is very low. Those that do leave are generally those fresh out of college and have not worked elsewhere, so they don’t have an idea of how many hours other IT shops work.

matt_london_413 wrote:

It should be 4 hours per day. And 20 hours per week max.

But due to dumb humans it's 40.

Yeah because that makes sense. You need 8 hours of sleep. An hour to and from work sometimes. Why not waste 11 hours of a 24 hour day revolving around work.

Makes sense to me everyone. Yay!

Just goes to show how dumb geeks and twinks really are.

With amortization, AI and related technologies, and continued outsourcing, that's probably where most developed countries are heading. A robot arm handed me my drink at McDonald's yesterday. There simply will not be enough jobs to go around, especially for unskilled workers. Alternatively, several of the tech billionaires have been arguing for some form of a universal minimum wage. So, probably either reduced hours or cash handouts.

observereconomist wrote:

SprintTriathlon wrote:

Why are you still working 40 hours in the US?? Nobody cares about you???

Unions?

35 hours is the standard in Europe, workers and companies are happy, and yes, we do pay tax, but the healtcare is free and very effective and good for all.

This post betrays an unfortunately simplistic view of work, economics, and healthcare. The Twitter generation has created a mic-drop scenario out of what used to be detailed and collegial discourse on complex topics.

Stop trying to sound smart - you are failing.