• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      611 months ago

      That’s the ponit same pay as 40 hr for 32 hr. . Better work/life balanced. I know it will not matter to you as you pick your hrs but there are a ton of people that are not that lucky… if they whant to work 40 nothing is stopping them the company will just have to pay 8hrs of overtime.

      The answer is more workers…

      • chiisana
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -611 months ago

        Would love to reduce the number of hours worked while retaining same comp. However, I don’t think more workers is a viable solution, because that’d imply companies eating the 20% extra cost. Whether or not they can get it through shareholders and the board aside, fact that the amount of working aged adults are shrinking (due to boomers retiring and lesser children in later generations) makes it much harder to add more head counts. There must be ways to improve efficiency without corporate/shareholder greed, and that’s a tough pill for the world to swallow without very drastic changes (UBI for example).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          611 months ago

          But there it is… if the top took a hiar cut that would cover it. Lower entrance requirements to get the job… means more eligible works… it’s a tuff one yes. Is there enuff workers maybe. But it’s worth a try.

          • chiisana
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -511 months ago

            I’m stuck in middle management, and have many middle and senior management peers, so I see both sides of the arguments here getting pushed back hard. I cannot begin to imagine the top willing to take a cut, there’s no benefit for them what so ever. Anything lower tries to justify will just be brushed off. On the flip side, I definitely do not want to reduce entrance requirements… bad hires hurts my team’s performance in non linear fashion.

            If meaningful changes were to happen, it would have to be mandated by laws and regulations, but I don’t see a path for those laws and regulations to change without drastic societal changes that would support such.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          911 months ago

          We don’t have a worker shortage we have a shortage of well paying jobs. If companies pay better than people will take the jobs… and that sucks she has to work so much has they try hiring at better wages or you know she could say no…

          • @jeffwOP
            link
            English
            2
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I agree some of what you’ve said in this threat, but we 100% have a worker shortage. I work in healthcare and there just aren’t people out there with the qualifications we need. There are not enough doctors or nurses in the US. The govt funds a lot of healthcare education (nursing and medical schools). The govt isn’t expanding slots and schools often can’t find teachers anyway (for nursing anyway, not docs as much).

            The answer is obviously immigration, but that’s an ethical issue in healthcare. Bringing in people who want to be nurses and docs usually means taking them from developing nations. As the US population gets older and we have fewer young people, we just won’t have enough people working in healthcare.