Bring back the forty-hour workweek

Matthew Yglesias teasingly suggests that “Democrats need populist economics to regain the allegiance of the white working class,” but then says “blah.”

Well I say he gave up on the idea too fast, and here’s one suggestion for Democrats: bring back the forty-hour workweek.

Wait, don’t we still have a forty-hour workweek? Not if you’re in the class of employees considered “exempt” from the wage and hours laws. If an employee is exempt, then the employer can tell him “work twenty hours of overtime this week or be fired.” And a large percentage of white collar employees fall under the exempt classification.

Apologists for corporate greed will say that the employee can just quit if he doesn’t like it, but as I explained before, there’s an unequal power relationship between the employer and the employee. Because the employee’s job is his sole source of income, and because finding new jobs is very difficult, the employer always has the upper hand.

Apologists for corporate greed will also say that forced overtime work benefits the economy. But this is not true, it only benefits the bigwig managers and shareholders of the corporation. The economy as a whole does not benefit, because an employee’s free time also has economic value. When an employee’s overtime labor is free for the employer, the employer is likely to take advantage of it often because it’s a free resource! But while it costs the employer nothing, the employee loses.

If a numerical example helps, suppose that ten hours of overtime work has a value of 10 to the employer, but that same ten hours of overtime has a value of 30 to the employee. The net loss to the economy by forcing the employee to work overtime is 20. By changing the laws so that businesses must pay employees time and a half for overtime work, we help to better economically align the interests of employers and employees, and thereby make our economy more efficient.

Unfortunately there are no bold initiatives coming from Democrats these days to make the lives of regular Americans better. Democrats are acquiescing to the interests of big money corporate donors just like the Republicans.

UPDATE

I have some additional thoughts about this issue in my post on socialism vs. capitalism.

Comments

[Bubblehead]

I have been in the "exempt" class for the last 12 years, and am happy for it. First, I still make more money than just about every hourly employee I have worked around AND there are weeks when it works to my advantage. I am not "punished" for taking a 3-day weekend, or heading out early on Friday to be with my kids. Granted, there are weeks when I worked 60 hours, but there were some when I worked 30.

Another thing that you idiot Libs keep bringing up is the greed of so called "corporate america." Guess what Sunshine, a majority of this country owes their jobs and their standard of living to Corporations. What are these evil companys? Who works there? AMERICAN workers work there, earn money, which they spend at other american companys.

"Corporate America" is not some secret evil entity out there stealing food from children and detroying the earth, they are businesses supporting the american worker. The destruction of the "Corporations" in the destruction of the american economy and our way of life.

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

Bubblehead is correct to note that any corporation is actually a collection of people rather than an individual entity. As such, no one person can be held responsible for the corporation's actions. That's how the people in the company see it.

That's why some individual (or even a group) may decide to overwork their employees. Someone else may decide to underpay them. Someone else decides on some other policy hostile to the worker. It's not a conspiracy, but the effect is the same (and that effect is bad for people who work there).

Not every corporation is as hostile to its employees as Wal-Mart. Not every company is as unscrupulously organized as Enron. Still, I think the nature of the corporate collective is such that it can't be trusted on its own. It needs supervision, criticism from "outside."

[cracker]

As a former unioon president and MBA grad, please learn a few things about labor law and supply and demand economics before you write something down. Bubblehead is an example of the MAJORITY of exempt and executive positions.

Supply and demand comes into effect when businesses underpay or overwork employees. As those employees leave (and they will) businesses find they must increase wages and decrease hours worked to attract employees. Businesses survive by making good, logical business decisions. Overworking or underpaying employees is NOT a good business practice; it will actually COST a business MORE than it would if they did not treat their employees this way. This is a fact.

Wal-Mart pays what the market dictates. They build into their cost structure a high turnover rate. Most employees at Wal-Mart are not there for life or make a career out of it. Wal-Mart has succeeded by keeping their costs down. This is one reason why they fight unionization. Unions would increase costs, and Wal-Mart would either fire the union workers or close the store. it saves them money. That is how they do business. Sam Walton was a genius when it came to cost and price strategy. This is why you may never see Wal-Mart in France or Germany. The labor issues over there would not allow them to make money.

If you wish to learn more on business or read a different viewpoint, feel free to stop by www.uncivilrights.blogspot.com.

[Kender]

Cracker...brilliant man, just brilliant.

If you don't work for an hourly wage then overtime is a moot point. I am not on hourly wages, nor is my wife, and sometimes I work 20 hours a week, sometimes 80, sometimes she works 30 or 60...it all depends on what needs to be done that day.

I broke down my pitiful little salary once....it was around 25 bucks an hour. My wife makes 4 times that amount. We never complain about the time we spend working. We just remember that we aren't working for hourly wage and if we really want to we just go home. But that is rare since we have a something called a "Work Ethic"...they issued it to us when we became republicans.

[SheaNC]

Cracker: WalMart pays what the market dictates? No, they pay what results from workers' desperation. WalMart workers have had to apply for assistance like food stamps to make ends meet, increasing the tax burden on others. They make their money selling cheap short-lived junk. Sam Walton's "genius" strategy was to build in an area and offer artificially lower-than-market prices to drive small business into the ground and form a monopoly. It's as American as Standard Oil.

Kender: with an attitude like yours, that "work ethic" may be the only example of ethics you'll ever know.

[Ogre]

It's absolutely amazing that a person who has absolutely no clue how capitalism works can even function in America.

[Kender]

SheaNC....funny...but wrong. I do have ethics, and morals believ it or not. I also have a conscience. But I am also a realist, and the realist in me says life is not fair, some succeed some don't, and the world still needs ditch diggers and shit pitchers.

Deal with it...it is called reality.

[SheaNC]

Kender, the fact that life is not fair (the fact upon which liberalism is based), leaves each of us to decide how to function within that unfair environment. Liberalism is realism: we recognize life's unfairness and are idealistic enough to try to help those whom that unfairness has dealt a heavy blow. Liberals will continue to fight for the civil rights of those "ditch diggers and shit pitchers", to try to ensure that they are not exploited or abused by those who would do so. Yeah, "some succeed, some don't," but while you may dismiss unfairness as "the way it ought to be," liberals will continue to address it head-on.

[cracker]

SheaNC, I suggest you read a book. Desperation of the workers? Obviously you're not up to debate on Wal-Mart since you have no knowledge of business, finance, economics or Wal-Mart. If you would care to LEARN rather than spout stupidity, I suggest you reasearch the issue. Local economies increase after a Wal-Mart moves in. Other business adapt to the changing marketplace-that's what good businesses do. Wal-Mart is not a monopoly. Most people that work at Wal-Mart are NOT the sole provider for their families...I could go on, but you have listened to Air America far too long and have lost your ability to think logically. Please understand your stance is socialistic, and socialism NEVER works.

[TJ]

... most 'exempt' employees, myself included, are compensated upfront for the lack of overtime (higher base salaries). And there are benefits - flexible work schedules, flex-time, telecommuting, etc. FWIW - I make more than every one of my friends, most of which are paid hourly and some of which are union members.

WRT - "WalMart ... pay what results from workers' desperation" ... WHAT? If workers are desperate, they should get a different job! Sure, in hard times you may 'settle' on Walmart ... but times are getting better, and if you have a reasonable skill you can find something better (or get promoted within Walmart). Cracker is dead on, even if he is pro-union'ish ...

And is working frontline retail supposed to be your lifelong career?? And if so, do you honestly expect to get rich off of it?? I would hope not, and in fact - any store (with the possible exception of very high-end boutique-style stores (or jewelry stores!)) where this could happen would (rightfully) go out of business!

Kender - your wife makes $200k/yr! Damn, she has me beat! Good catch! :)

/TJ
NIF

[SheaNC]

Cracker, your personal insults don't make you any less wrong, although they speak volumes about you and your inability to support your position. You sound more like a usenet troll, but if the only way you can feel superior is by using snide insults, then you can have it. You suggest I read a book? I've read more than you could ever know, I've done more research than you could imagine, and I have lived in the world of wal-mart far too long to tolerate their actions.

"Local economies increase after a wal-mart moves in"? Hardly. Studies show that for every two jobs gained at WalMart, three are lost elsewhere in the community. And I never said they are a monopoly, I said they are known to move into areas and drive competition out of business with artificially lowered prices (lower than market rate, a subversion of the process of supply and demand). And of course "people that work at wal-mart are NOT the sole provider for their families", it would be impossible because they don't pay enough for that, which ought to put them on the hit-list of the family-values crowd who assert that mothers should stay at home: they can't if dad works at wal-mart.

Wal-Mart sucks money away from taxpayers in amounts that true conservatives should be concerned about: more than a billion dollars in economic subsidies taken from taxpayers, while they rake in nearly nine billion in profit. Taxpayers are also forced to subsidize wal-mart because most wal-mart employees qualify for public assistance, and many of them must use it. In California it costs the taxpayers 86 million dollars a year. And wal-mart encourages their employees to collect public assistance, so that wal-mart doesn't have to pay them. So, Cracker, it turns out that by endorsing wal-mart it is you whose "stance is socialistic". I want these workers to be able to support themselves and their familes, while you would rather leave them dependent on social services and public assitance. Nice.

Wal-Mart is also a leading advocate for legislation to kill the use of class action lawsuits, since they are sued more often than any American entity except the U.S. government for their abuses. Reports of their abusive policies against their employees are quite numerous.

And TJ, you might be surprised to learn that not everyone views the world the same way you do. Frontline retail might be a stepping-stone position to you, but to many people it is their career, their livelihood, and yes, sometimes it is a lifelong career, and many times it is a long-term vocation. Often there is no other work, so people do what they must, they take what is available, and that situation can last a looong time. No one expects to "get rich off it" as you say, but they do want to receive a fair day's pay for an honest day's work, no more, no less... something wal-mart does not want to provide. And to those whose answer to that is "they should get another job," I remind you that we are addressing situations where there are no other jobs, expecially for workers who lost their jobs when wal-mart drove their former employers out of business.

Add to all this their policies of lying about where their products are made, and selling mostly inferior crap so their customers have to keep coming back to replace it with more inferior crap. It's a cycle of dependence.

So, if you want to perpetuate corporate welfare, peoples' dependence on social services, civil rights abuses, litigation, destruction of small businesses, and erosion of communities, keep on supporting wal-mart.

[TJ]

Hey, I found a few things I agree with ... sweet!

"more than a billion dollars in economic subsidies taken from taxpayers" ... Yes, most tax subsidies border on criminal. (However, that is not Wal-Mart's fault so much as the local/state govts that grant them.)

"their policies of lying about where their products are made" ... Then they should be sued, and should lose.

"selling mostly inferior crap" ... Simple answer - don't buy it!

Don't get me wrong, I am not "pro-Wal-Mart" so much as I am against the basis of most of the complaints I have heard against Wal-Mart.

... OK, back to the things I disagree with ...

IMHO, unions are bad. They served a valid and necessary purpose, but now all I see are abuse & waste (by the unions now, instead of by the employers (like 'back in the day'))

"And TJ, you might be surprised to learn that not everyone views the world the same way you do. Frontline retail might be a stepping-stone position to you, but to many people it is their career, their livelihood, and yes, sometimes it is a lifelong career, and many times it is a long-term vocation" ... surprised, hardly. But it is a choice; like many others. A lifelong career in retail (never making it to dept lead, manager, etc.) is an example of someone who for one reason or another has made that choice. Maybe that is all they want out of life, maybe they have other priorities. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad choice for some, but people should strive to improve both themselves and their position in life (relationships, career, social, etc.). And, having made this choice they shouldn't complain.

/TJ
NIF
The Wide Awakes

[TJ]

Just tripped across this as well : ... More thoughts on "The Wal-Mart Effect"

/TJ
NIF
The Wide Awakes

[Luke Lea]

The twelfth and last plank of the Born-Again Democrat Platform calls for a four day week and a six hour day. The 40 hour week was predicated on the woman staying home to cook, clean, and raise the kids. If 40 hours of wages could support a family in the 1950s, why can't two 24 hour a week jobs do it today? Because of changing technology and free trade mostly -- plus the fact that working people are not organized like they were a hundred years ago, when they fought for and won the 40 hour week. See my post on "Whose Money Is it Anyway?" and the four following for a complete run down on the issues involved. I come from an old labor family, btw.

[Abigail]

Luke Lea asks:

If 40 hours of wages could support a family in the 1950s, why can't two 24 hour a week jobs do it today?

An excellent question!

[TJ]

Not everyone has 2 incomes ... my family lives solely off of salary, and that is why I work my 40hr (or longer, on occasion) work week while my wife stays home with our baby (and our dogs). A '2*24hr work week' could support a family, with the provision that hourly workers almost always earn less than full time employees (and rightfully so!).

Also : Good thoughts on the Walmart "problem"

/TJ
... NIF
... The Wide Awakes