• rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Can someone explain that “with no loss in pay”?

    It’s not like there is a magical way to know what you’d get paid if you worked a 40hr week, when everybody works 32hr week, and punish your employer if it’s less.

    It’s not like wages are determined by the government either.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      From the bill itself:

      (iii) by adding at the end the following:

      “(3) With respect to any employee described in paragraph (2) who in any workweek is brought within the purview of this subsection by the amendments made to this Act by the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, the employer of such employee may not reduce the total workweek compensation rate, including the regular rate at which the employee is employed, or any other employee benefit due to the employee being brought within the purview of this subsection by such amendments.

      And yes, wages can definitely be determined by the government; see the Federal minimum-wage limit. Salary would remain the same; your hourly-wage would be increased by 1.25x.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            It would increase pay for some, and leave others without their jobs. Same as any other minimum wage increase.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Yes, but combined with shorter work week, which may cause some increase in the amount jobs of exactly for people earning close to minimum wage, the result may be less noticeable.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Salary would remain the same

        For somebody hired before the law is enacted.

        EDIT: And minimum wage, if it’s going to be increased, will mostly affect people earning the minimum wage. Obviously.

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      It means that full time is 32 hours per week.

      I havent read the bull so I don’t know what protections it has for hourly or salary employees.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        There can possibly be none.

        And most things get done in the first 4-6 hours of every day, if it’s not a dumb job at McDonalds. So I’m not sure there’ll be need to hire many more people.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Is there any reason that it couldn’t use existing employees rate of pay as a benchmark and literally force them to pay accordingly while reducing hours? It’s not like that wage data is secret its reported to the government as part of withholding. Ultimately a business would have to hire to meet needs or commit to paying overtime to all its 40 hour workers.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yes there is at least one reason: jobs that aren’t yet defined wouldn’t exist in the Big Table of Centrally-Controlled Prices. So we either don’t apply it to those, or we prevent anyone from creating any new kind of employment arrangement without first getting government approval.

        This kind of thing precedes starvation and mass murder. This is very dangerous.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        OK, then hiring new people they’ll pay less, and after everybody’s been rotated - for everybody.

        Which is logical, I don’t get why he adds that phrase everywhere.

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Since we are playing I run the world can’t I just say you can’t offer less than the average you are already paying for new people? If you don’t like it you can always close up shop and cede the market to someone else. Also wages are normally sticky. A large portion of your workforce works for someone else how will you ever attract them to work for you with smaller wages?