Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaomidi | Hacker News Reader

4 day work week has been successful in most places. As a world we should move towards it.

Other benefit: less environmental impact, more time for people to improve themselves and their mental health, etc.

When picking candidates for employment, why would an employer choose someone who is willing to work five days over someone willing to only work four? A stressed-out employee who is at work is going to outperform a well-rested employee who isn't present

Because their union insists that all their members get a 4-day work week or you don't get any workers at all. This is what unions are for: standing up for workers' rights when the employer would otherwise be incentivized to pursue the short-term gains from exploitation.

Or the workers can go to an employer without a union, work 5 days a week, and see a greater return on the amount of work that they're putting out since they're having 20% more output than the competition without having to pay union dues

> A stressed-out employee who is at work is going to outperform a well-rested employee who isn't present

Citation needed.

There is no hard evidence for this belief. In fact, and especially for creative jobs, employees that are well rested and happy will contribute more than stressed out plebe barely getting by.

You ask me for a citation, then make an even more specific claim without providing definitions or a citation yourself?

Successful or not is not the point.

If met with the 40% pay increase it's another huge pay raise. There is no reality where line workers screwing in the same 3 door bolts all day long are getting what amounts to an effective ~70% pay increase.

Additionally, the 4 day work week is yet unproven in an industrial setting, such as are UAW member's jobs.

That 40% is amortized over 4 years, which is ~9.8% annually. Where are you getting the rest of the 70% from?

> Settle in for a wild propaganda-filled fall season

> There is no reality where line workers screwing in the same 3 door bolts all day long are getting what amounts to an effective ~70% pay increase in one year.

Please align your own comments. They are looking for a 40% hourly pay increase over 4 years, and a reduction to a 32 hour work week. These combined work out to an increase of 12% in annual pay, over four years. No UAW hired since 2007 makes more than $17/hour.

If you're looking for more details of what the UAW wants, they are in this article: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/13/where-uaw-negotations-stand-...

Ah, so the propaganda has already started.

In four year's time, will their pay be 70% higher than it is today if all demands are met?

Yes.

Are you hopeful about a 70% pay increase in four years? I sure am not...

Ah, so the propaganda has already started.

This is getting into weasel word territory; you completely ignored the GP observing the contradictions within your own rhetoric, and responded with more rhetoric and a fallacious premise. Being rude isn't helping your unpopular argument to gain more traction.

> In four year's time, will their pay be 70% higher than it is today if all demands are met?

No? If a given employee is making $17/hr, and working the union agreed 40 hours a week, they are making $35360. If they get a 40% raise over four years, they will be making $23.80/hr, and working 32 hours a week, giving an annual wage of $39,603.20. This is an increase in annual wage of 12% over four years. The hourly wage is an increase of 40% over four years. No one is getting close to 70%.

> Are you hopeful about a 70% pay increase in four years?

Honestly yes, I think that is in the realm of possibility, as I'm currently pretty underwaged for my industry and experience level. Currently interviewing for a job at a 45% increase. Regardless, as I demonstrated above, your 70% number is, as you put it, propagandha. I certainly feel that the post-2007 UAW hires aren't being compensated adequately for any industry, and the 40% hourly increase they're seeking is quite reasonable.

In one post you say 70% in a year, now you say 70% in 4, with respect to the first quoted post, this looks like walking back a failed attempt at propaganda.

A four day work week is only another pay increase if you're talking about a salaried worker. The kind of worker represented by UAW is not generally overtime-except, so they don't get paid for hours they don't work.

I somehow don't see UAW arguing for a reduction in pay. The four day work week is more often than not accompanied by a related pay increase so the total pay per week remains the same as a five day work week. The benefits are supposedly a better rested and production workforce, which has yet to be demonstrated in the type of setting UAW oversees.

You're inventing terms that are not discussed in any source I can find. The sources I see show a 4-day work week and a 40% pay increase. If you can find evidence of a second pay increase we can talk, otherwise I'll assume that the 40% is meant to be that increase.

You led out your initial comment warning about propaganda—it might be worth considering if you fell for propaganda on the other side.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com