Posted on 10/05/2009 1:37:19 PM PDT by arthurus
But there are other schemes for spreading the work, often put forward by union spokesmen and legislators. The most frequent of these is the proposal to shorten the working week, usually by law. The belief that it would spread the work and give more jobs was one of the main reasons behind the inclusion of the penaltyovertime provision in the existing Federal Wage-Hour Law. The previous legislation in the states, forbidding the employment of women or minors for more, say, than forty-eight hours a week, was based on the conviction that longer hours were injurious to health and morale. Some of it was based on the belief that longer hours were harmful to efficiency. But the provision in the federal law, that an employer must pay a worker a 50 percent premium above his regular hourly rate of wages for all hours worked in any week above forty, was not based primarily on the belief that forty-five hours a week, say, was injurious either to health or efficiency.
(Excerpt) Read more at jim.com ...
When it got to be 60-65, the reduction in productivity and the increase in stupid mistakes was noticeable.
This idea was apparently never let go of by the leftist unions.
Under Obamacare, if the employer must pay for health insurance for every employee expect the employers to start requiring 50-60 hour work weeks, especially among low wage workers. Sure, they’ll have to pay time and a half after 40 hours, but by reducing the number of employees will reduce the number of policies and reduce the total cost. What if you only want to work 30-40 hours a week to get your insurnace paid for? Nope, if you don’t work 60 you won’t work any.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.