Hacker News Reader

Comment by fastbeef | Hacker News Reader

Scania, the truck manufacturer, did this during 08-09. 10% paycut, 20% time reduction and they encouraged people to use the time to study and improve. None were laid off.

View on HN

While I think this might be a good step in production work, it might be killing for firms in knowledge intensive industries. When this happens the first to move are the still employable and affordable youths. So the average age and salary might go up after a move like this. In the long run older firms get more trouble hiring youthful people, etc. Source: an interesting discussion with a union bargainer that was actually dismayed that young people disliked working hour reductions even though the firm promised no layoffs in return. My take away is that for some employees an honest severance package is better than working hours reduction.

I'm not certain it would be bad for knowledge intensive industries. My reasoning is that people would use their time more wisely and get more done. As for young people (also affects older), I think the implication `more time working => more done` is still deeply ingrained even when there are arguments against it[1].

I do agree that having forced off-time can be distressing to some people. Some may like to think they are indispensable to run the company, and suddenly they feel betrayed because their company doesn't need them working at 100%. Or they are optimistic and think the grass is greener elsewhere. Or...

Anyway, I think it would be interesting to see studies of """productivity""" when employees are forced to do part-time work. Based on what I know, I wouldn't too surprised to see good social benefits (but it doesn't mean everybody would thrive).

[1] A simple search here on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=long+hours

Unions generally work for those who have been there the longest. The young workers don't like hour cuts when they see people who have been there for years not have to take the same cuts. Worse, when you are young it is harder to have the required savings in place. My bank won't accept a lesser house payment - if I have been there for 10 years inflation has indirectly made my house payment less so I can afford to live on less income, which benefits the older worker over the younger. (there are lots of bills in life, some do hit older workers more and I'm intentionally not talking about them)

I've actually seen the opposite of that, on medium/small firms (at least the ones I've worked on) when hard times hit the first to go down are the senior positions (except those close to management) and they're substituted with way cheaper out-of-college people.

Google "dead sea effect" for some interesting discussion of this sort of thing. Many companies end up with a majority of employees with no mobility, and the culture in those workplaces suffers because of this.

Much of this is not due to goodwill of owners, but unions.

Why not both?

These are specific examples, not general trends, so you should be able to cite evidence that these examples were due to union pressure.

Note that union boosters tend to want to push the narrative that all business owners and managers are evil caricatures of greedy capitalists who wouldn't give workers anything but scraps if not for the valiant unions protecting them.

Not saying it's never true, but know when to be wary of union people claiming this and avoiding the point that unions sometimes obstruct efforts to keep the company alive and not lay anyone off during hard times by demanding strict adherence to negotiated agreements on hours and wages.

A pay cut would be an "over my dead body" issue for many unions.

Edit: Since this apparently does not go without saying, the feedback loops in a union are all wrong for taking that kind of risk (remember, the pay cut does not guarantee company survival). People willing to rock the boat with calculated gambles like that do not rise to positions of authority in a union.

That depends on where you are. If I recall correctly, In ~2009-2010 German automotive unions worked together with management and employees and negotiated widespread reduction of work hours in order to prevent layoffs.

Of course unions/employee representatives have a different place here(e.g. half of members of the board of directors are elected representatives of employees.)

That's a quite specific german phenomenon that does not replicate much outside, specially around europe.

France, Spain, Italy, etc... Tire-burning trouble starts with just mention of the possibility

The Volkswagen Autoeuropa plant in Portugal did this, and as far as I know it went very well.

Where I work the non-union staff are not laid off in downturns, only the union staff.

If your company does business in the United States, they're violating the law. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers/d...

Section 8(a)(3) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer, "by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment[,] to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization." (An employer that violates Section 8(a)(3) also derivatively violates Section 8(a)(1).) For example, you may not

- Discharge, constructively discharge, suspend, lock out, lay off, fail to recall from layoff, demote, discipline, or take any other adverse action against employees because they support the union or engage in union activities.

This is nothing to do with union membership: when sales are down we slow the production line (everything is just in time) and part of that is letting go people on the production line who are not needed at the slower pace of operations. They will be recalled if sales improve. You have to be union to work on the production line (that is in the contract), so there is no discouragement of membership.

What about companies where different parts of the company have differing work arrangements? For instance, my telco has some union workers in specific roles, as well as non-union retail staff, and a "management professional" category. If union people were getting laid off, it would be due to the role, but of course there would be no non-union workers in that role.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com