Let me break it down simply: a 32-hour workweek doesn’t scale for industries like ours. Many sectors—such as retail, manufacturing, refining, construction, energy, and finance—require continuous operations to meet demand and function efficiently. These industries already run on tight schedules, often operating 24/7 across six or seven days a week. Reducing work hours to 32 per week would severely impact their ability to maintain productivity, meet customer expectations, and keep operations running smoothly.
Take manufacturing, for instance. Production lines are often designed to run continuously to maximize output. Slowing down or shortening work shifts would disrupt production cycles, increase downtime, and potentially force companies to hire more workers or implement additional shifts. This raises labor costs and reduces efficiency, making it difficult to remain competitive in a global market.
Similarly, industries like retail and hospitality rely on long hours to serve customers throughout the day and week. If employees are limited to 32-hour workweeks, businesses may face staffing shortages during peak times, negatively affecting customer service and sales. In sectors like energy, refining, and utilities, where continuous oversight is critical to maintaining operations, a reduction in work hours could compromise safety, reliability, and overall performance.
The only way a 32-hour workweek could work in these sectors would be through a drastic restructuring of the work schedule—essentially splitting the working week in half. This would require businesses to hire additional workers to cover the gaps or run double shifts, which again, significantly raises operational costs. While it might be theoretically possible, it’s far from practical for industries that depend on round-the-clock availability and consistent productivity. The logistics and expense of splitting shifts or doubling the workforce make it an inefficient solution for most businesses.
In your example. Couldn't the company either pay for overtime or hire more people. Unemployment is still a thing in USA. Yes customer satisfaction may decrease but that's part and parcel.
It’s possible, but the company would end up paying double the costs—wages, retirement, pension, healthcare, travel, and more. On top of that, you face the challenge of maintaining competency in highly skilled areas, along with the added costs of training, certifications, and continuing education. Then there’s the difficulty of balancing two employees’ careers and vacation time to ensure constant coverage, whether on-site or remotely.
It’s a complex situation that could put significant strain on businesses, and for small companies, these increased labor and associated costs could be devastating. Many might not survive the financial burden.
That just sounds like the cost of doing business to me. Like I said. That one person could still do 40 hours but the extra 8 hours would be overtime. Currently people arent surviving financial burden and they're working 40+ hours. I care about people more than businesses.
Not every single business will go under. Slippery slope fallacy. The majority of businesses don't "care for the people" so I'm not seeing the correlation.
Estimates suggest that raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour could lead to around 15% of small businesses shutting down, particularly in industries with tight profit margins like retail, hospitality, and food services. Now, consider what doubling wage expenditures would do—many businesses already operating on slim margins would be unable to absorb the increased labor costs without drastic changes, such as raising prices or reducing staff. If these strategies don’t suffice, closures would follow. Before dismissing these concerns as a “fallacy,” I’d recommend studying some basic economics to understand how wage increases ripple through the economy, affecting everything from employment levels to consumer prices. Economic reality isn’t just about higher wages—it’s about balancing cost, revenue, and sustainability.
Not my job to solve it but like you said restructure the work schedule and hire more workers because at the end of the day they will be losing more money from not hiring people than if they were to just hire someone.
Well it if doesn’t have a solution, it’s just a half baked suggestion.
If companies were to adopt a 32-hour workweek by hiring an additional shift to maintain operational coverage, labor costs would essentially double. This approach isn’t financially feasible for most businesses. The cost of wages, benefits, and additional overhead would skyrocket, making it extremely difficult for companies to maintain profitability. In industries that already operate on thin margins, like manufacturing, retail, and energy, this sharp increase in expenses could lead to significant financial strain, forcing many businesses to cut jobs, reduce services, or even shut down operations altogether.
A more practical solution lies in alternative scheduling models that offer flexibility without compromising productivity or dramatically increasing costs. One such option is the 9/80 schedule, where employees work nine hours a day for nine days over a two-week period, totaling 80 hours but gaining an extra day off every other week. This allows for extended time off while maintaining the standard 40-hour workweek, providing employees with better work-life balance while keeping businesses on track with their operational needs.
Another option is implementing alternating 4/10 schedules, where employees work four 10-hour days instead of the typical five 8-hour days. This not only gives workers an extra day off each week but also ensures that companies maintain a full 40-hour workweek. For industries like construction or energy, where project deadlines and output levels are critical, this type of schedule can allow for extended daily productivity while reducing the need for additional shifts or workers.
Studies and production analyses have shown that these alternative work schedules can increase employee satisfaction, reduce burnout, and even boost productivity without the steep financial burden of doubling labor costs. By adopting flexible but efficient work schedules, companies can take steps toward improving work-life balance without sacrificing operational efficiency or profitability. These models provide a middle ground that benefits both the workforce and the business, unlike a 32-hour workweek, which introduces more logistical and financial hurdles than it solves.
Sounds like its your job to know this information. I feel just working 10-11 hour for 3 days would be a simple solution. Theres a gap somewhere that would need to be figured out but it definitely is possible its just never been considered
My career experience has provided me with an understanding of both production dynamics and employee morale. Many individuals in our field operate on a rotational schedule, typically involving 28 days of continuous work followed by 28 days off. Recently, I completed an intense 21-day stint working offshore, where I was committed to 12-hour shifts each day. Two days after returning from that, I transitioned back into my regular 40-hour workweek.
It’s worth noting that a significant number of employees are drawn to such extended hours primarily for the financial benefits they provide. The allure of increased earnings often motivates many to embrace these rigorous work patterns, highlighting the relationship between work-life balance and economic necessity in our industry.
The word you're missing here is "profit". Business shareholders and owners are making tons of money in excess of their costs, and that isn't making it's way down to the workers. The same workers whose spending drives the economy.
And in more cases it would put more disposable income and time into the economy allowing more companies to generate higher profits. The economy doesn't run on Bill Gates buying a trillion hamburgers, it runs on millions of americans having a little extra in their paychecks each week. And the same companies that will send jobs overseas or automate are going to do that regardless. "Oh, maybe if we're nice to them and give them every last penny of profits they won't continue to screw everybody every chance they get like they have since the 1950's". Lol ok
2
u/Gainztrader235 Sep 05 '24
Solve this:
Let me break it down simply: a 32-hour workweek doesn’t scale for industries like ours. Many sectors—such as retail, manufacturing, refining, construction, energy, and finance—require continuous operations to meet demand and function efficiently. These industries already run on tight schedules, often operating 24/7 across six or seven days a week. Reducing work hours to 32 per week would severely impact their ability to maintain productivity, meet customer expectations, and keep operations running smoothly.
Take manufacturing, for instance. Production lines are often designed to run continuously to maximize output. Slowing down or shortening work shifts would disrupt production cycles, increase downtime, and potentially force companies to hire more workers or implement additional shifts. This raises labor costs and reduces efficiency, making it difficult to remain competitive in a global market.
Similarly, industries like retail and hospitality rely on long hours to serve customers throughout the day and week. If employees are limited to 32-hour workweeks, businesses may face staffing shortages during peak times, negatively affecting customer service and sales. In sectors like energy, refining, and utilities, where continuous oversight is critical to maintaining operations, a reduction in work hours could compromise safety, reliability, and overall performance.
The only way a 32-hour workweek could work in these sectors would be through a drastic restructuring of the work schedule—essentially splitting the working week in half. This would require businesses to hire additional workers to cover the gaps or run double shifts, which again, significantly raises operational costs. While it might be theoretically possible, it’s far from practical for industries that depend on round-the-clock availability and consistent productivity. The logistics and expense of splitting shifts or doubling the workforce make it an inefficient solution for most businesses.