California Considers 4 Day Work Week For Larger Companies

[moderndarwin]

It could be long depending where you live. the 10 hrs can easily turn to 12 if you factor in getting ready and commute time and then boom half your day is gone. But you're not lying about the extra days, I had old colleague's that prefer 4x10s. WFH got me spoiled

It’s hard for salary employees to have set working hours anyway.

It’s a lot better if it’s a 4 day work week because the only time people slightly let off the pedal is when everyone is off.

Working 10 hours a day is normal in a lot of industries anyway. Though personally i’d rather have Wednesdays off.

 

[deusavertat]

Im on a 7 day stretch of 10 hours a day, from 3 pm to 1 am monday through sunday. The burn out is real by the end of the week.

 

[wallyhopp]

How do companies accept paying folks more for less? Is Ca gonna strong arm their way into having this be the norm?

Get paid the same to work a Quarter less time. That’s genius. But Like I said, unless it’s a law, I don’t see how this gets accepted on a company level.

I can see people being forced to work 3 days and just 24 hours with a pay cut.

How can they ensure nothing changes but you get paid a whole day not to work? Seems fairytale-ish.


I’m actually surprised WFH companies aren’t taking into account true remote work. You got folks pulling Bay Area money living in cheaper nevada. Sadly I can see the downward salary shifting happening soon

 

[tay1]

How do companies accept paying folks more for less? Is Ca gonna strong arm their way into having this be the norm?

Get paid the same to work a Quarter less time. That’s genius. But Like I said, unless it’s a law, I don’t see how this gets accepted on a company level.

I can see people being forced to work 3 days and just 24 hours with a pay cut.

How can they ensure nothing changes but you get paid a whole day not to work? Seems fairytale-ish.

They'll get over it if it goes to law.

Also it's for larger company's who can afford to do so. Not fairytale-ish at all. It's already something that's done in places .

 

[Mark Antony]

It's only two more hours. You get a whole extra day off.

I'm saying, dudes think they're going to die for 2 extra hours?

 

[wallyhopp]

How is it not a paycut if your hours get cut? What am I missing? Are we talking salary employees only? The forced OT at 32 makes sense but unless your wage goes up, your now capped at 32, and not 40. Anycompany will find another worker to get those same 32 hours in and not pay anyone ot. If new OT begins after 32, you better believe they’ll find ways to screw everyone.

This is a great thing for salary employees. Work hard for 4 days, get an extra day off.

With the current state of things, many need the hours and would want even a sixth work day. Someone joked about it a page back. But that’s where we are for so many

 

[Mark Antony]

Saw a schedule that was 2 days or 3 days at a time but not back to back, so you would have like 2-5 day breaks in between each rotation. Forget exactly but thought that was dope.

 

[deusavertat]

How do companies accept paying folks more for less? Is Ca gonna strong arm their way into having this be the norm?

Get paid the same to work a Quarter less time. That’s genius. But Like I said, unless it’s a law, I don’t see how this gets accepted on a company level.

I can see people being forced to work 3 days and just 24 hours with a pay cut.

How can they ensure nothing changes but you get paid a whole day not to work? Seems fairytale-ish.


I’m actually surprised WFH companies aren’t taking into account true remote work. You got folks pulling Bay Area money living in cheaper nevada. Sadly I can see the downward salary shifting happening soon

Spending more time at work doesn't mean you're being more productive. There are many jobs especially ones with deadlines and projects that can get the job done in less time. Obviously this doesn't work with every job out there.

If you can hit the same benchmarks and overall productivity stays the same this shouldn't be an issue. Less wasted time lounging around an office for no reason.

 

[tay1]

How is it not a paycut if your hours get cut? What am I missing? Are we talking salary employees only? The forced OT at 32 makes sense but unless your wage goes up, your now capped at 32, and not 40. Anycompany will find another worker to get those same 32 hours in and not pay anyone ot. If new OT begins after 32, you better believe they’ll find ways to screw everyone.

This is a great thing for salary employees. Work hard for 4 days, get an extra day off.

With the current state of things, many need the hours and would want even a sixth work day. Someone joked about it a page back. But that’s where we are for so many

Workers will be paid the same amount as if they were working 40 hours

 

[tay1]

Spoiler: Bill 1

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]

Introduced by Assembly Members Low and Cristina Garcia​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

February 18, 2022​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]​

---

An act relating to employment. to amend Section 510 of the Labor Code, relating to employment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST​

​

AB 2932, as amended, Low. Employment: workweek. Workweek: hours and overtime.
Existing law defines and regulates the terms and conditions of employment. Existing law generally defines “workweek” for these purposes and requires that work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek be compensated at a rate of at least 1 1/2 times the employee’s regular rate of pay, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor.
This bill would instead require that work in excess of 32 hours in a workweek be compensated at the rate of no less than 1 1/2 times the employee’s regular rate of pay. The bill would require the compensation rate of pay at 32 hours to reflect the previous compensation rate of pay at 40 hours and would prohibit an employer from reducing an employee’s regular rate of pay as a result of this reduced hourly workweek requirement. The bill would exempt an employer with no more than 500 employees from the above provisions. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law generally establishes that 8 hours of labor constitutes a day’s work and further establishes a 40-hour-workweek.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would enact a four-day-workweek.

DIGEST KEY​

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: noyes Local Program: noyes

---

BILL TEXT​

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:​

SECTION 1.​

Section 510 of the Labor Code is amended to read:

510.​

(a) (1) Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 32 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee. Nothing The compensation rate of pay at 32 hours shall reflect the previous compensation rate of pay at 40 hours, and an employer shall not reduce an employee’s regular rate of pay as a result of this reduced hourly workweek requirement.
(2) (A) Paragraph (1) does not apply to an employer with no more than 500 employees.
(B) For an employer with no more than 500 employees, eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work. Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee.
(b) Nothing in this section requires an employer to combine more than one rate of overtime compensation in order to calculate the amount to be paid to an employee for any hour of overtime work. The requirements of this section do not apply to the payment of overtime compensation to an employee working pursuant to any of the following:
(1) An alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511.
(2) An alternative workweek schedule adopted pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to Section 514.
(3) An alternative workweek schedule to which this chapter is inapplicable pursuant to Section 554.
(b)

(c) Time spent commuting to and from the first place at which an employee’s presence is required by the employer shall not be considered to be a part of a day’s work, when the employee commutes in a vehicle that is owned, leased, or subsidized by the employer and is used for the purpose of ridesharing, as defined in Section 522 of the Vehicle Code.
(c)

(d) This section does not affect, change, or limit an employer’s liability under the workers’ compensation law.
(e) This section applies to persons who are not exempt from overtime compensation pursuant to Section 515.5, 515.6, 515.7, or 515.8.

SEC. 2.​

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

SECTION 1.
It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would enact a four-day-workweek.

Spoiler: Bill 2

H. R. 4728

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours per week to 32 hours per week, and for other purposes.

---

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 27, 2021
Mr. Takano (for himself, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Tlaib, and Mr. García of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

---

A BILL
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours per week to 32 hours per week, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act”.
SEC. 2. FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended—
(1) in section 7(a) (29 U.S.C. 207(a))—
(A) in paragraph (1)—
(i) by striking “commerce, for a workweek longer than forty hours” and all that follows through the period and inserting “commerce—”; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
“(A) for a workweek longer than thirty-two hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed; and
“(B) for a workday longer than—
“(i) eight hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed; and
“(ii) twelve hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than double times the regular rate at which he is employed.”; and
(B) in paragraph (2)—
(i) in the matter that precedes subparagraph (A), by striking “Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966” and inserting “Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act”; and
(ii) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and inserting the following:
“(A) for a workweek longer than thirty-eight hours during the 1-year period beginning not less than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act,
“(B) for a workweek longer than thirty-six hours during the second year after the first day of such period,
“(C) for a workweek longer than thirty-four hours during the third year after the first day of such period, or
“(D) for a workweek longer than thirty-two hours after the expiration of the third year after the first day of such period,”; and
(2) in section 18(a) (29 U.S.C. 218(a)) by inserting “or workday” after “workweek” in each place it occurs.

 

[mr jordan04]

They'll get over it if it goes to law.

Also it's for larger company's who can afford to do so. Not fairytale-ish at all. It's already something that's done in places .

They won’t get over it if it goes into law. They’ll make changes so they don’t lose any money.

You gotta make those shareholders happy. Can’t have your shareholders losing money and respond, “but our employees are happy!” Shareholders also don’t give af about the workplace, employees, etc. They wanna see a return on that investment by any means necessary

 

[tay1]

They won’t get over it if it goes into law. They’ll make changes so they don’t lose any money.

You gotta make those shareholders happy. Can’t have your shareholders losing money and respond, “but our employees are happy!” Shareholders also don’t give af about the workplace, employees, etc. They wanna see a return on that investment by any means necessary

Of course they'll try to combat it, but how?

They're prohibited under the bill from lowering the salary as a result of the change.

So lets say they fire everyone and change the salary or hourly rate? You think that's good for the company?

 

[wallyhopp]

Workers will be paid the same amount as if they were working 40 hours

Salaried?

Make that argument make sense from an hourly perspective. Is everyone getting a pay increase to make up for their lost working hours? If so, awesome.

Again, if youre hourly, your hourly wage may stay the same. That’s true. But your hours worked change. Isn’t CA in massive debt but want to basically tell companies how to run things?

I’m actually all for it but not exactly optimistic that this passes without changes occurring. They didn’t say anything about firings. There isn’t less hours, there’s no hours for many

This all reminds me of the 30-32 hour part time threshold that many companies enacted when they were forced to dish out healthcare. These big companies are loophole kings. I don’t believe they will have hourly workers all working on OT on that fifth day. The average worker will work less hours and be compensated less.

 

[tay1]

Salaried?

Make that argument make sense from an hourly perspective. Is everyone getting a pay increase to make up for their lost working hours? If so, awesome.

Again, if youre hourly, your hourly wage may stay the same. That’s true. But your hours worked change. Isn’t CA in massive debt but want to basically tell companies how to run things?

I’m actually all for it but not exactly optimistic that this passes without changes occurring. They didn’t say anything about firings. There isn’t less hours, there’s no hours for many

This all reminds me of the 30-32 hour part time threshold that many companies enacted when they were forced to dish out healthcare. These big companies are loophole kings. I don’t believe they will have hourly workers all working on OT on that fifth day. The average worker will work less hours and be compensated less.

Of course changes will occur in the bill. If you read the actual text, it's very simple. Detail will need to be added.

 

[gry60]

They won’t get over it if it goes into law. They’ll make changes so they don’t lose any money.

You gotta make those shareholders happy. Can’t have your shareholders losing money and respond, “but our employees are happy!” Shareholders also don’t give af about the workplace, employees, etc. They wanna see a return on that investment by any means necessary

They will when they don't find anyone to work for them.

Right now, companies are fighting over employees. If wages/benefits are crap, you don't get applications. The company I work for is still being too slow to respond appropriately to the shift in the marketplace, and as a result, they have lost about a quarter to a third of the workforce in the last 6-8 months, and it's not going to stop anytime soon (if you catch my drift).

I didn't realize how hard it was for recruiters until I stumbled on this thread:


Needless to say, employees have the upper hand right now; they'd better take full advantage of it and demand as much as possible from their legislature.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Friday or Monday as the new weekend day? Monday >

I'd rather take Monday off.

Friday's are generally chill at many jobs anyway. (Outside of the high stress locations)

We have to find a way to break-up the school week though. 5 straight days of instruction isn't working for the modern child.

During virtual instruction, WEDS was our day for clubs/fun stuff. Everyone needs that because folks are just going through the motions at this point.

 

[Mark Antony]

Yeah let's redefine Mondays as the new weekend, it's had a bad rap.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

They will when they don't find anyone to work for them.

Right now, companies are fighting over employees. If wages/benefits are crap, you don't get applications. The company I work for is still being too slow to respond appropriately to the shift in the marketplace, and as a result, they have lost about a quarter to a third of the workforce in the last 6-8 months, and it's not going to stop anytime soon (if you catch my drift).

I didn't realize how hard it was for recruiters until I stumbled on this thread:


Needless to say, employees have the upper hand right now; they'd better take full advantage of it and demand as much as possible from their legislature.

My previous job had 3 ppl in a span of 6 weeks decline offers for a SFA role at about 90K total comp. Doesn’t even include all the other ppl who removed themselves from the interview process once they found out what the salary was. Then had 3 ppl (including myself) leave. All within like 3 months

Employees have the upper hand right now. Be cheap or have a trash work environment if you want to, you’ll be hurting for employees soon.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Yeah let's redefine Mondays as the new weekend, it's had a bad rap.

6 Rings G.O.A.T. would agree.

 

[Mark Antony]

My previous job had 3 ppl in a span of 6 weeks decline offers for a SFA role at about 90K total comp. Doesn’t even include all the other ppl who removed themselves from the interview process once they found out what the salary was. Then had 3 ppl (including myself) leave. All within like 3 months

Employees have the upper hand right now. Be cheap or have a trash work environment if you want to, you’ll be hurting for employees soon.

Yeah I get hit up for higher paying roles but I'm already in a sort of "golden handcuffs" position. I don't want to make it worse by getting paid more when I'm trying to transition out my area in the field.

 

[wayniac211]

I'd rather take Monday off.

Friday's are generally chill at many jobs anyway. (Outside of the high stress locations)

We have to find a way to break-up the school week though. 5 straight days of instruction isn't working for the modern child.

During virtual instruction, WEDS was our day for clubs/fun stuff. Everyone needs that because folks are just going through the motions at this point.

hate Mondays more than I like Friday. Choosing monday as well.

 

[frshstunna]

Watch some red state propose a six day work week to own the libs now.

Sad part is this is a real possibility …”We work HARD in this state, NO liberal handouts!”

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Speaking of Monday's, how many of you usually call out the Monday following the Super BOWL?

I would assume that is one of the more common days folks call out from WORK.

 

[el Chief]

How do companies accept paying folks more for less? Is Ca gonna strong arm their way into having this be the norm?

Get paid the same to work a Quarter less time. That’s genius. But Like I said, unless it’s a law, I don’t see how this gets accepted on a company level.

I can see people being forced to work 3 days and just 24 hours with a pay cut.

How can they ensure nothing changes but you get paid a whole day not to work? Seems fairytale-ish.


I’m actually surprised WFH companies aren’t taking into account true remote work. You got folks pulling Bay Area money living in cheaper nevada. Sadly I can see the downward salary shifting happening soon

These WFH companies are starting to make adjustments. I know a few large companies already adjusting salaries down for employees who have moved outside of their area. Most employees ended up moving back.

 

[Mark Antony]

Speaking of Monday's, how many of you usually call out the Monday following the Super BOWL?

I would assume that is one of the more common days folks call out from WORK.

Dunno why, cats can't handle a little food and drink? But yeah I remember prior companies starting to threaten folks about not showing up that day.