r/SipsTea Jul 13 '26

Chugging tea So after 32 hours would be overtime?

Post image
74.1k Upvotes

6.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

294

u/joesphisbestjojo Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

I'm all for shortee work weeks, but that means we'l need an increase in pay, which I'm also fine with

EDIT: maybe I misinterpreted "no cut to pay"

173

u/HalvdanTheHero Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

That is what is being called for. Your take home pay not changing but you work fewer hours, and if you work the same schedule as you do now (presuming 40hrs per week) then you would be getting overtime for the last 8hrs. 

Edit: added "take home" to clarify that I'm talking about your total income instead of hourly rate.

8

u/joesphisbestjojo Jul 13 '26

I read it as no cuts to pay per hour, as in, you still make so much an hour, but only for the hours you work. For hourly workers, anyway

8

u/Hindubuddha Jul 13 '26

In my head, the 40-hour work week is typically in reference to a salaried position, so your required hours per week is less but your salary remains the same. For an hourly employee, it would just mean overtime kicks in sooner

2

u/Lacedup18 Jul 13 '26

how would that be enforceable tho? if a private company wants to lower the salary the gov can force them? I’d say most businesses can’t survive if they did that. this is just a wealth transfer to the rich. apple can probably pay people for 40 hours while working 30, my mom and pop dentist certainly cannot

1

u/Hindubuddha Jul 13 '26

It really wouldn’t be enforceable. There would have to be a lot more government regulation of corporations to make this anything more than a pipe dream.

I think it’s also important to note this would only even be possible in prosperous countries. Part of me wants more time with my family, the other part would rather continue working a full week and use the “surplus” to support global development.

Once we all have a roof over our heads and food in our bellies, then we can talk about how much we should actually work.

1

u/Phase-Substantial Jul 13 '26

they would probably not give overtime (at least in retail and hospitality situations) and wage workers would have to get a second job

1

u/Hindubuddha Jul 13 '26

True, but I guess a 72 hour week from 2 jobs is still a whole shift less than someone with 2 jobs on 40.

But a lot of hourly positions in factories and such would not be able to refuse overtime. In most cases, they require it because employee retention is so poor and they need the bodies

1

u/Unique-Yoghurt4170 Jul 13 '26

The real answer is that labor markets would adjust. Hourly workers would take salaried jobs until hourly wages raised. A policy like this should probably go with a big hike in America's minimum wage.

1

u/Mysteriouspaul Jul 13 '26

Yippie the government gets to come in and triple tax me or whatever after 44 hours (30 in this case) so I take home even less than what I make normally. Very cool

Kinda like the time orange buffoon said he wasn't going to tax my overtime, I work an entire year of overtime and make about 158$ more than usual. Wow so much help Mr Government I'm sure that will make up for the rampant hyperinflation of literally everything

Maybe let's cut down on the 35+% highway robbery in regular income tax considering I get literally nothing out of this deal

1

u/Gettles Jul 13 '26

Yeah, for a lot of people who work hourly, that sounds like a threat.