Talk:Amendment: The Labour Act, Inter
Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/11/2023 9:30 PM
Tabled by Jonn Stevens, MGA, DPPK, as an independent member’s bill. An amendment to shorten the work week. Voting presently set for 25th of May. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Amendment:_The_Labour_Act,_Inter The Kodiak Republic Wiki Amendment: The Labour Act, Inter An amendment to shorten the work week. ACTIONED on ## month ####, ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/11/2023 9:32 PM
@Assembly Member Voting on this bill is now opened. Voting presently set for the 25th of May. I will begin by saying even though I eventually support a shorter work week, in our current economy I don’t believe that reducing the work week is a wise decision. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/11/2023 9:35 PM Now with the economic climate right now it might not seem like the best idea but in several studies it has been found the companies that give workers a 35 hour work week have higher productivity higher worker happiness and higher profits now in today’s world I believe this is what the economy could need to boost it in the right direction because again, most companies that have done this find that it will increase productivity, and and more profits that’s my reason of writing this bill and endorsing it and over all if the worker is happier they get more stuff done Also, people who were happy with their job usually stay at their job Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/11/2023 9:42 PM
Would it be possible to link said studies? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/11/2023 9:42 PM Just give me a second and I’ll link them The Public Service
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 05/11/2023 9:45 PM
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/11/2023 9:48 PM Shortened Work Weeks: What Studies Show | Walden University
https://www.waldenu.edu/programs/business/resource/shortened-work-weeks-what-studies-show Walden University Shortened Work Weeks: What Studies Show The results of several workplace surveys may defy expectations, but the data is clear: shortened work weeks can work for businesses and employees. In countries like Iceland, Japan, and New Zealand, organizations found that employees who worked fewer hours at full pay met or exceeded expectations, felt less stressed, and enjoyed having more leisu... Here’s one Ill find more Why a decrease in work hours can boost both well-being and productivity: Jennifer Moss
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/jennifer-moss-35-hour-work-week-iceland-study-1.6110977 W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/11/2023 9:52 PM From a market point of view, if this is the case, then I would ask - why does the government need to tighten employment laws to do this. Shouldn't we be able to allow employers (in conversation with their employees) to choose the best hours for their business needs? Not to mention, this law doesn't make any notice of jobs that require long hours to even function, such as medical professionals or farm labourers in Harvest time. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/11/2023 10:03 PM My rebuttal to that is in that case why have a work week at all even if this can’t work for some individual company’s the whole purpose of the work week it to have the worker be better and not be exploited as with this act this is not mandatory people can go over these limits but they would just be getting more pay for it also for farmers that would depend on the employer if your a family owned farm you are your own employer you can pay your self what ever you want if your a big farming company this is the amount of time your people can work before you start to pay overtime also for doctors specially have you never heard of shifts this isn’t a set couple of hours for a set time each person on the shift works for that amount of time on that day and then the next person takes over and if they wanna work overtime that’s their prerogative Also let’s not forget for these jobs pay would most likely be radically different W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/11/2023 10:06 PM Sure, but lowering the work week and saying "use overtime" just means that we're making employment more expensive. Even if you hire new people to cover missing hours, there are still on boarding costs like training, uniforms, and familiarity building. Also, medical professionals are a limited resource. The amount of work we ask of our doctors needs to expand and contract based on the health needs of the population. We can't just 'buy' more doctors out of the aether. Paying double the overtime pay doesn't make there be more doctors, it makes healthcare more expensive The same goes for farming, if we arbitrarily increase the cost of labour, we're just increasing the price of food. Reality dictates that some jobs, and some time periods require hard work in a short time. and those agreements should be made between the employee and the employer if we come in with a government-sized chainsaw and lay down a hard limit, we remove that flexibility and freedom for both employers and employees Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/11/2023 10:28 PM I ask again what is the work week for in this case multiple studies have shown that this increases productivity and happiness so employers are literally geting more productivity and workers are getting the same amount pay and being more happy also in regards to farm workers this is just establishing the base line amount they have to work for normal pay and if the want to go over they can go over we are also not saying qoute “just use over time” they can work over time if they want IF THEY WANT again this is the base line so they are not exploited now for doctors again you forget shifts also if a doctor is working 24 hours any given day that should get this over time for that day and and I have to preface and say we currently have a 40 hour work week as the base shouldn’t we have the same problem with said work week if so I have not heard about it W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/11/2023 10:29 PM If we lower the definition of work week, then we decrease the threshold before overtime pay occurs you can't 'choose to work' overtime for standard pay Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/11/2023 10:41 PM Yea and with this amendment people get overtime at a shorter period with the abject benefit of in most cases increasing their productivity there by increasing profits (in any case im about to go to bed I’ll have more energy to debate tomorrow) W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/11/2023 10:42 PM that makes no sense if you need someone to work 50 hours, presently you pay for 55 (10 at 150%) if we drop it to 35, then someone working 50 hours will cost 57.5 (15 at 150%) Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/11/2023 11:23 PM I support this bill because people should be given decent hours of work. Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/12/2023 12:27 AM I support what Magnus has said, and would like to point out that the studies Mr. Stevens has cited were all conducted in office or office-like conditions. I would consider supporting this amendment if it was limited to office environments, but in its current, blanket approach, I cannot support it. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 8:26 AM Maybe it's time to move on to a four-day (32-hour) work week? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-21/four-day-work-week-uk-study-finds-majority-of-employers-shifting?srnd=economics-v2 Moreover, the efficiency of not only office workers increases. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-30/want-a-four-day-work-week-show-this-research-to-your-boss Image Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 8:29 AM
Ireland, the US, and Australia are all developed economies. Someone link a study preformed in Venezuela and I’ll consider supporting this. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 8:32 AM Do you consider our citizens flawed? That they are stupider and weaker than in developed countries? How does the development of the economy affect the price of this experiment? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 8:32 AM I just want to make a point on the doctor example Regarding shifts for doctors, doctors still would need to be rostered adhering to an average of the legal standard hours of work per week - except they can with agreements dictate how that looks. whether it be a typical weekly roster, or over a set period of days (amounting to more than a week) with rules around consecutive cumulative hours of shifts. However it still needs to average the legal standard hours and any more rostered shifts becomes overtime. Depending on the location, especially rural locations, this may mean that the average hours required is always more than the standard hours currently set out in our employment laws, and a reduction stretches already stretched and thin resources.
The state of the healthcare system today is quite poor, and increasing the cost of rostering doctors will be a detriment to patient health outcomes until such a time as Kodiak has a far better healthcare system than today.
I'll preface my statement with: in general I would prefer to see less than 40 hours as standard in the future, and I would even support a gradual reduction in future, rather than an immediate jump to an ideal number that is only practical for a strong economy. However, the state of the economy dictates we are aware that a 5 hour reduction to the working week is a dramatic change in the face of a struggling economy, where workers already struggle to be employed.
We simply are not able to commit to a one sized fits all approach now to this extent in my humble opinion. Not just in healthcare.
In fact, what I would rather see is the gradual empowerment of collective bargaining first as the flexibility in our labour laws exists to allow for better conditions to be negotiated where possible. Which can tend to follow a successful worker empowered business as growth occurs, allowing for better conditions to eventuate to support an effective workforce. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 8:35 AM
Not at all. I’m saying in those three nations, people have the privilege of making custom RVs. In Kodiak, we don’t have that privilege. I believe in our citizens as much as anyone else, but we hardly get by on 40 hours. Combined with what Charlotte and Magnus have said about certain jobs needing full time coverage, the work week should definitely stay the same. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 8:42 AM I am fighting for a four-day working week not because I am kind and strongly sympathize with the working class, but because it is more efficient and profitable. For less effort, we get more.
A long work time is not equal to a good result, as this study clearly shows. You can say the same about doctors. The quality of the operation can vary greatly, and there is a lot to minimize the risk of error.
Is there nothing in the budget for healthcare? But it will pay off! The better health care - the longer people live and the better and longer they work at constant training costs.
It's not a budget hole - it's an investment. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 8:43 AM On the bill at hand, overtime is already outlined in the Reasonable Wage Act. I would move that this bill take that into account and amend the Reasonable Wage Act as well as the Labor Act (Inter). https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_Reasonable_Wage_Act,_653 The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Reasonable Wage Act, 653 PASSED on 23 APRIL 2023 with 22 Aye, 2 Nay, and 3 Abstain. In order to establish a fair and beneficial workplace for all citizens of Kodiak, the General Assembly of the Republic of Kodiak hereby enacts the Reasonable Wage Act which shall Amend the Labour Act (Inter). Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 8:43 AM How do you know we are qoute barely getting by on 40 hour to my understanding we in poor economic conditions because of government overspending again in many places this as been proven to increase productivity something we desperately need and I’d also like to say this doesn’t just work for offices it works for factories and other such environments it’s has been proven to increase happiness for workers and encourages more people to be employed it won’t at all move the needle on unemployment except maybe decrease it Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 8:44 AM
For less effort, we get more.
In a highly industrialized country, I would agree. From my understanding, Kodiak cannot be considered highly industrialized at this point. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 8:44 AM
https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/DPBR_654_AB The Kodiak Republic Wiki DPBR 654 AB WORK IN PROGRESS Public Secretary's Summary - General Comments “Barreling towards total financial collapse” von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 8:45 AM Prove to me that at 40 hours a person works more efficiently than at 32. Perhaps we should set 25 hours a day, since we are in crisis? Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 8:46 AM
Again, I offered to support this bill if someone provided a 4 day work week study in Venezuela. You seem to have ignored that message? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 8:47 AM We aren’t like Venezuela we are not in similar circumstances Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 8:48 AM If you require additional data, you can indeed request it from the public service. OOC: Note the DPBR is not fully complete yet and there'll be more insights later. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 8:49 AM After a quick search, this doesn't appear to ever have happened. All I can find for a 4-day week was when President Maduro declared state holidays on Fridays for 2 months for a power crisis. Which flopped hard Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 8:50 AM I'll stress that I have not stated nor believe that 'more hours' necessarily = more productivity. However I am highlighting that in current circumstances, more hours can be the average and needs to be addressed gradually economically, sector specifically, and with incremental improvements to labour laws. Rather than shooting straight from the hip as it were. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 8:52 AM That’s literally what we did for the 40 hour work week von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 8:52 AM I see it as absurd. What makes you think this won't work in an underdeveloped economy? Where are the grounds, in addition to ephemeral tea leaves? I have provided an article where my position is confirmed in black and white. You dismiss prejudices and guesses. Therefore, be kind enough to refute my words supported by practice with arguments, dressed in the armor of scientific papers and research Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 8:52 AM
If you check the last amendment to the labour act before this, our GM quotes “A bottom 30 economy.” Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 8:53 AM We went from an archaic and impossibly harsh 65 hours per week. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 8:53 AM And qoute shot from the hip and decreased it down to 40 Better but not good Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 8:53 AM No, that is a completely different circumstance, as it was tantamount to abuse of the average citizen. I cannot say that a 40 hour work week is remotely the same. Nelson Singh (Equitar) (CKA) — 05/12/2023 8:56 AM Although I do support what the amendment is attempting to do, I cannot reasonably approve of this. This act will be more impactful in different economic markets and sectors, for better and worse. For example, I refuse to believe that workers in the hospitality industry are going to be producing more, and better quality food per hour if they worked less hours holistically. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 8:56 AM
I would like to remind you that every study you have listed has taken place in developed countries. Your argument is comparable to a study showing that people who drink water have longer lifespans and concluding that cancer can be cured by water. A 32 hour work week should be considered once Kodiak is not 3 years away from total economic collapse. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 8:57 AM What I am saying is if we can decrease it by that much not even gradually with little harmful effects I think it’s fine to decrease it by 5 hours to something that has been proven to increase productivity von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 8:58 AM On the other hand, staff turnover is reduced by 50%, stress levels and the number of sick days are reduced. There is a benefit. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:00 AM A study in the authoritative Bloomberg magazine. They have not tainted themselves with the listed nonsense. And again: where are the facts? Are you seriously still fighting me off with your rich imagination? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:02 AM Like I said, generally I support a reduction of the standard work week from 40 hours. In the current climate, whether that is feasible to jump there whilst our goal should be to reduce unemployment or not is another question. I can easily see this backfire and result in fewer jobs being created regardless of productivity benefits. I do not agree that removing what amounts to 'employment slavery' of 65 hours per week (13 hours per day) is at all similar to the present situation. Where at the time workers needed to make ends meet by working many more hours than what we'd now call standard, but get nothing more from it. It was not a choice for the workers in the Interregnum. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 9:03 AM
Of course Bloomberg hasn't tainted themselves with the "Listed Nonsense." I am telling you that you are drawing the wrong conclusion. As for "Where are the facts?" Please provide any 4 day weekend study taken place in a bottom 30 economy. Prove to me that this plan works in poor countries, and I will support it.k von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:04 AM Can Russia be called a poor country? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:04 AM 35 hours is wonderful, 4 days a week is wonderful. We should go in that (correct) direction incrementally. Nelson Singh (Equitar) (CKA) — 05/12/2023 9:05 AM (OOC: I might find time tomorrow to do a Google Scholar dive on 4 day week work in poorer countries, I cannot guarantee I will find anything.) Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 9:05 AM Again in the study’s I’ve found this doesn’t move the needle on unemployment in some cases it’s been found to decrease it the facts are that this has been found to make workers happier and more productive especially in the business sector some I pretty sure we need Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:06 AM I think someone else raised that those studies are not representative of every economy in the world. For instance, if we were the "United States of America", for sure I would say we do it right now and leap at with both hands. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:07 AM On the contrary, reducing the working week will reduce unemployment, because in order for the company not to stand idle, it will have to hire more people. But due to increased labor productivity, we will not only stabilize the economy, but also overcome unemployment. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:08 AM The company will first have to account for the cost of employment, which hiring more employees is more costly than the 5 hours. This is easily absorbed by a larger corporation with endless profits. Most of Kodiak is not there yet. Hence why I feel we should move incrementally. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:10 AM Hiring workers is more expensive, but the profit is also greater. 8% of the air is not taken. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:10 AM Incrementally in terms of hours, whilst addressing and reducing the gap in what workers can produce and own vs large corporations. Then incrementally more. When the economy picks up, the 4 day week is a far more achievable goal. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:10 AM OK, let's go the other way: why do you think this won't work in an underdeveloped economy? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:13 AM All assumptions are based on a developed economy. That automatically profits will scale as they hire more, when realistically profits are not necessarily linear to productivity. If a large proportion of Kodiak struggles as it is, and employment is an immediate hit, the assumption that they can immediately hire more or that the profits they make are able to cover everything is a big assumption to make. Shouldn't we lessen the immediate blow by gradually introducing changes, rather than jumping to the full change and saying, "Adapt now." I think our opinion merely differs on approach, rather than desire. Isabella Esposito (KWP) — 05/12/2023 9:19 AM Don't suppose we can try it out on a select few companies then implement it large-scale if it works? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 9:22 AM I mean could we I wouldn’t be against it Nelson Singh (Equitar) (CKA) — 05/12/2023 9:24 AM How are we supposed to do that? Ask them nicely? Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 9:25 AM
On page 9, there is a chart dividing member countries by income. I will take any study conducted in a middle-low to low country. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESP2020_Annex.pdf Isabella Esposito (KWP) — 05/12/2023 9:30 AM Something something compensation something something tax reductions was my general idea lol Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:30 AM Speaking neutrally. Regarding a 'trial'. While not done before, I suppose a group can be formed by the GA if they are interested and the GA deems it worthwhile, which can petition for businesses to volunteer to join such a study. Though the study would need to be run impartially and it would take time, and would need to report back to the GA. This would be outside and separate to legislation. The executive government could also make an attempt to organise an impartial study of this nature, if they desired.
OOC: Realistically I'm not sure. This isn't something that we can 'simulate' out of the box. It really needs to be something worthwhile and of great interest as it would involve quite some effort to produce, for some kind of 'event' that may produce follow-ups or outcomes at a later date. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:36 AM 1) Productivity = quantity of goods received / resources spent 2) Profit = quantity of goods * cost of one product - resources spent.
If we increase productivity, we either reduce the cost of producing one product, or increase their quantity.
Let's turn to the second formula. Suppose we increase the quantity of goods. Then, lo and behold, the profit grows. Suppose we reduce costs. Then (who would have thought) the profit is still growing. Increasing productivity always means increasing profits.
Let's move on to the numerical expression of profit. Let the employee produce X money for 5 days of work (for the prostate, we will transfer the goods to money). Let his salary be 0.4 X per working week (the figure is taken from the ceiling, but in fact it changes the nc). Then with four days of work, it will produce 1.08X money. Now get to the point. The employer has hired a new employee to work on the vacant day. Then the profit will be
1.08X +1.08X / 4 - 0.4X - 0.4X / 4 = 1.31X
In the classic version, the profit will be:
X - 0.4X = 0.6X
Almost two times less than in a four-day working week. This proves the instant impact of such a reform.
And I did not understand why our industrial backwardness hinders us. She won't pick up a stick and chase us. It has little effect on the mentality. She is helpless in the face of more progressive rationing of the working day. Isabella Esposito (KWP) — 05/12/2023 9:37 AM (r/theydidthemath material lol Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:38 AM It's easy to apply a formula to it but we cannot say formula is always perfect. Like I said - I agree with it.
However I feel that an incremental approach means that in the worst case, more groups can absorb the negative initial downside, and fill the gap with productivity and hiring. Stabilise, then be able to better absorb the next increment. Whereas an immediate greater change does run the risk of some collapsing without the chance to benefit. All I'm saying is, I don't think we should go 100% day 1, year 1, but rather incrementally approach 100% across Y years, whatever that Y is. Because we also gain the benefit of hopefully other improvements we as a body can introduce which will support the later increments better and more successfully, perhaps even allow for a greater jump than before. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:39 AM In fact, this is pure, unclouded logic. Nothing complicated, everyone can do it. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 9:41 AM @The Public Service Most esteemed GM, would it be possible for us to get the industry scale for Kodiak based on this system of measurement? https://unstats.un.org/wiki/display/SDGeHandbook/Indicator+9.2.1 More or less, I'm interested in seeing the comparable industrialization of Kodiak compared to nations worldwide. Nations which are capable of making changes to their work and labor standards are usually the ones which already have gone through the work to create a blossoming economic environment. For example: America has spend the last 150 years burning through natural resources and now has an obligation to switch to clean energy. An African country, such as Ethiopia, has been economically suppressed and thus needs to be allowed the time to build up their energy systems using coal and oil. I think the same applies here to Kodiak. IF we are in a state of reduced industrialization, we have an obligation to proceed slowly. We cannot jump from, for example, first-time coal use to solar farms in just a few short decades. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:45 AM OOC: Just want to say - It's a nice formula in a perfectly formed environment imo. Again I agree with the benefits, completely. I think it's a mistake to treat it formulaically when in reality the model of such a situation is probably not just a linear model, but also a probabilistic model. Unfortunately it has been many years since I studied probabilitistic modelling so I have forgotten many things and will not able to properly model this confidentally (as much as I'd love to purely for the intellectual interest). Sorry :( von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:48 AM Your logic is wrong. The workers beat out their rights not when industrialization ended in all its glory, but when they took a serious role in the economy to threaten the government with strikes. We are moving to clean energy not because we are developed, but because the depleted resource base forces us to act this way. The normalized working day and clean energy were effective in the Middle Ages as well as today. They can be implemented at the first physical opportunity that appears, repeatedly increasing labor productivity and living standards. The problem is not the technological level of reactionaries and conservatives, who, unacceptable, block progress. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:50 AM (OOC: Any probability is taken into account by statistical measurements. And as studies have shown, there is no such probability. The increase is always 8%, and deviations and errors have already been taken into account in this number) Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:50 AM The workers beat out their rights not when industrialization ended in all its glory, but when they took a serious role in the economy to threaten the government with strikes. I applaud this. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 9:53 AM (OOC: We should probably move this particular conversation elsewhere, although perhaps later when it's not almost 1am here. But if you have papers please share (drop it in dms or another channel?), if only for me to read for intellectual 'exercise' later. Modelling uncertainty is always pretty interesting, and trying to model an economy like Kodiak is probably out of scope for gameplay but pretty neat to think about imo. I'm sure there are a few schools of thought, like many things.) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 9:54 AM ((OOC: TO BED WITH THEE!)) von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:55 AM (OOC: Tomorrow I will find these documents and send them personally. Good night.) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 9:56 AM Mr. @Jonn Stevens (DPPK), focusing on your proposed bill, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I believe we were distracted by the tangent. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 9:58 AM I propose to reorient this bill as an amendment to the above. This statement can be supported by pressing +1. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 9:59 AM Yes looking over the act it doesn’t state the number of hours in the work week witch is the purpose of this amendment so i do not believe it needs to be amended From what I can see it in that aspect it only covers overtime Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 10:02 AM Correct. I'm specifically meaning the draft's mention of overtime. I should have been more specific.
I propose that the bill at hand amend the Reasonable Wage Act's definition of overtime in 1.2.1 to line up with your bill's definition. I would suggest something like:
1.2.1 Overtime is defined as working more than 30 minutes over the maximum workweek hours for their employment type or for more than 10 hours in a 32-hour period for full-time employees. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 10:03 AM I mean I’m not against it Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 2:47 PM With the Members of the Assembly here deliberating, we might as well be imposing 80 hour workweeks so that we could save the economy Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 2:47 PM ...What How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 2:50 PM The logic people were forwarding is that people are going to work anyways, we are just increasing the costs. Then we might as well save on costs and force our people to work in sweatshops Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 2:51 PM I don't think that's what anyone is arguing. People are arguing that a 32 hour work week is a steep jump from our current 40 in an economic situation that is already tenuous. We're trying to find a reasonable middle ground And the others are arguing that it is not a steep jump. The Republic Of Kurdipam (CKA) — 05/12/2023 2:53 PM What do we have here what is the topic about @Braughn F. G. Kryos your left yo Your party? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 2:55 PM Okay? That doesn't mean that I'm going to abandon reason for radicalism. There is a necessity for reform, but that doesn't mean it needs to happen all at once. It would be foolish to attempt to do this without exploring the outcomes and other options. Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/12/2023 3:21 PM I would once again like to point out that farmers, almost half the nation's population, simply cannot perform the necessary work in only 35 hours. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 3:24 PM And I agree with that statement. I am unsure of how this particular set of laws applies to self-employed individuals, however. I think if a self-employed person works 80 hours in a week, there's not much the government can do. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 3:26 PM Seeing as that person basically pays them self I’m pretty sure this doesn’t apply to them Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/12/2023 3:27 PM As am I I am of Mr. Shadbolt's mind, though. Farmers and farmer-employees should be exempt from the shortening of the work week in return for increased protections. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 6:55 PM What protections are you imposing instead? They be allowed to sleep? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 6:57 PM In all fairness it might be responsible to have this as a reasonable cut off point Also @The Public Service how much of our food is actually grown in Kodiak Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 6:59 PM While I don't have data for this as of the current term, the DPBR of 651 states that 42% of the population are farmers. So a great deal of food is grown in Kodiak and it is one of our biggest industries. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 7:00 PM Good just checking Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 05/12/2023 7:01 PM Just got caught up to speed on this bill, so correct me if I’m wrong, but one side of this debate is advocating for an immediate 35 hour work week, while the other is advocating for a more gradual change, at least until this economic crisis is over? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 7:01 PM Sort of I think Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 7:02 PM I would summarise 4 opinions, 32 hours + 4 days / week, 35 hours, gradual change, and stay at 40 hours. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 7:03 PM I think the main three arguments are we should have 35 hour work week because of increased productivity, and make people happier this shouldn’t be a blanket thing for all jobs and this is good, but maybe when we are in a better economic condition Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 05/12/2023 7:04 PM I have seen studies linked that try to prove efficiency stays the same with a shorter work week, but is there a mechanism that ensures that pay is scaled up accordingly? If factories and other businesses are just as efficient but annual wage is less because workers are working less hours, doesn’t that just mean the poor are getting poorer and the business owners getting richer? That doesn’t sound very conducive to a recovering economy. And I’m no economist, do feel free to point out flaws in my logic, because realistically there probably are some. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/12/2023 7:05 PM Salaries would remain the same (because this is typically a per annum figure), however it is true that hourly pay for non salaried would drop if businesses choose to not roster them for the same hours. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 7:05 PM I think in instances pay was kept the same for example, one union leader called it 39 hours of pay for 35 hours of work but I could be wrong Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 05/12/2023 7:14 PM Non-salaried workers may be particularly disadvantaged by this bill. However, I only see protections, such as letting employers only drop their hourly wage by a certain percentage, would most likely increase inflation of goods and services. Do you have any ideas on how to protect these workers without increasing inflation? Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 7:39 PM I mean France has had this for decades yet I don’t think it’s been linked to increased inflation plus i believe the general philosophy about it is that the companies will have to hire more workers wale increasing their general well being i also found another possible good policy in France their are two options for if you work over time one you get paid overtime or you get more time off would this be a invited addition to the bill Jason M. Corey (NUP) — 05/12/2023 8:02 PM It is in my opinion that this bill already trades less working hours for less economic productivity, even if it’s slightly less and only in certain sectors. I can only foresee additional benefits to workers for no reward to the economy will only result in even more economic downturn. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 8:04 PM I believe this works in this scenario so I’m going to encourage people to look back to Vons Zeppelins math von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 10:02 PM There are too many posts in this discussion, so it's natural that you get confused.
The point of a 32-hour work week is that with it, workers produce 8% more than with a five-day one, although the salary remains the same. The employer also wins, because his profit increases, and the employee, because he is less sick, less stress and more time for personal life, which increases happiness.
On the fifth day that is released, you can hire another employee. And then productivity flies into space - profit will double (see my formulas). In total, we earn more and reduce unemployment. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 10:14 PM Having survived the night, I thought a little, and realized something. Have you heard of Russell's teapot? This example demonstrates that the burden of proof is on the approver. I have aggrumented my statement. You have made a statement, but you demand proof from me. I will disappoint you: you will have to prove it. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 10:18 PM
Who is trying to change a law? If you cannot prove that the law works in impoverished countries, I will not vote for it. The burden of proof is on you, as the campaigner. I cannot disprove your argument, because nobody is going to conduct a study showing that this law doesn't work. The lack of evidence that you have found suggests that this law doesn't work in impoverished countries W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 10:22 PM I think there is a second major point which is that there is some assumption that you can hire another employee This is not a guarantee. If we take Farm Labour for example, there is a finite time limit and a finite amount of labour pool available. We can either a) leave the food in the ground because everyone went home, or b) increase pay to cover the 13% increase in overtime costs. Productivity in this scenario is already a constant - X amount of work needs done in Y amount of time - and there are only Z number of people to do it. This is also a problem in the health industry. There are only Z number of doctors and nurses. We can't magic them into existence. We either a) let people go without healthcare, or b) increase the cost of healthcare to cover the increase in overtime pay (therefore making it less accessible to people and they go without healthcare) von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 10:23 PM I have given proof that it works in principle. I don't have to prove that it doesn't work for a 70-year-old, in Asia, etc.. That's your concern. I have proof. You don't have it. So, only my opinion is supported. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 10:23 PM the previous members presentations seem to suggest that simply because office drones are interchangeable that the entire economy works this way. Its simply not true. While niche products may increase in nominal productivity for luxury goods, that still is not effective evidence we should define the entire economy by it Unless and until we can develop an economy by which there is a surplus of qualified workers, this law does not increase productivity. It literally decreases it von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 10:26 PM Can I provide up-to-date unemployment statistics? von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 10:32 PM I urge you to read the articles that I sent somewhere above in the discussion.
Suppose we do not hire an employee on the fifth day that has been released. But then productivity still grows by 8%. Where the result is not measured by quantity (doctors, teachers), quality increases. Why do you need the opportunity to perform heart surgery 24/7 if the surgeon fails his job.
Considering unemployment, we have where to get people from. Preferential training conditions and special courses will solve this problem of labor shortage. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 10:35 PM This is a false assumption that this is a task which can be performed 8% faster. Many tasks have set times. You can't perform more of them by being fresher. You just perform less of them. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 10:35 PM I’d like to see your proof your study’s your statistics on it this whole time me and zeppelin have been provideing the statistics and the study’s on these issues you and others are providing blanket statements not supported by any studies I can find first as I have said as von zeppelin has said as the literal study’s we have provided has said this has not been found in multiple scenarios to decrease productivity key word not it has also shown to increase worker happiness witch gives them incentive to stay in those jobs also I have to say on your point about doctors have you ever thought mabye just mabye we have a smaller number of them is because of said long hours hell I know we spend a crap ton on state school yet apparently we don’t have enough doctors have we ever thought that we have made the job unappealing to the public and mabye we could make it more appealing if we mabye work to decrease the amount each doctor works with shifts W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 10:35 PM I can't cook more 2 minute noodles by being a cook 13% less often W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 10:36 PM if we have a crisis of doctors because they refuse to work 40 hours, 35 hours isn't going to make the difference Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/12/2023 10:38 PM That missed the point I said that because doctors work such long hours it becomes less appealing to the general public to get the job also kind of dangerous And by decreasing the amount hours they work they could possibly make the job more appealing to the general public and probably make it more safe honestly von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 10:42 PM But in these two minutes you can brew tea, make sandwiches or clean up a little. Increased productivity always has a place to go. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 10:42 PM Right well I've downloaded the bloomburg study and its not very helpful Image they then provide no differentiated data Image even in those 9%, most of the jobs are white collar von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 10:44 PM Absolutely another conversation. I can work with this. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 10:45 PM they report these numbers Image and also report - none of them are statistically significant one measure barely manages a .05 alpha level one They are also really cagey about the test variable ratio they have N=903, but what looks like 35 variables or more? They also make no mention of how they analysed their data in fact, it appears not to be analysed at all - just a first level reporting they say things like "productivity increased" but they don't report any meaningful data on the descriptives they don't even suggest the data is normal Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/12/2023 10:50 PM
Also, though this may be correlation, not causation, in 2016, Venezuela's GDP decreased by 17-19 percent, which is the same timespan when they implemented three day weekends. I'd say that is somewhat conclusive proof that we should wait to implement a shorter work week. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 10:50 PM no information on Skew or Kurtosis of the data what the standard deviation is They seem to be very simple t-tests. And if you're committing multiple t-tests in the same data, then you're exponentially decreasing the power of the study N isn't even 903 - they report 903 in the middle of the paper but then in their appendix they say there was only a 63% response rate so N is actually 792 e. While most of the companies instituted a four day, 32 hour schedule, with a common day off–typically Friday– some opted for different configurations what does most mean? I also note the report is from a reduce-work-week lobby group. It isn't an independent finding The lead author is a member of their board W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 11:03 PM Now looking at the Iceland study from Jonn This reports no numbers at all really It is also self-published, so not peer reviewed They publish no descriptive data nor methodology They do report the trial was for institutions reducing work hours by (15 orgs) 1, (16 orgs) 2, (30 orgs) 3, and (5 orgs) 4 hours. But all data is collated together so no way to differentiate efficacy for each level. They say efficiency increased, but they don't really describe how they came to that conclusion mathematically, nor do they report the statistical significance of the data analysis. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/12/2023 11:13 PM Before I continue to look at every word, I want to ask you a question: did you see that this is not the study itself, but a "summary report of the study"? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 11:14 PM To continue on my previous point. These only apply for white collar jobs. In jobs where time is already obligatory, the conclusions cannot be carried forward You can't "run the shop" so well that you close it 2 hours early. The shop is open 9 to 9. It needs someone at the front kiosk for 12 hours. We can't just "legislate" more productivity W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 11:16 PM The level of work involved is becoming frustrating Image W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/12/2023 11:19 PM I'm not sure what "Full Report" means in this context if it isn't the full report Image All I can say is - even at the highest level of accepting the evidence you provided without comment (which I think there is plenty of reason to ignore because of conflict of interest, poor reporting, and lack of transparency) - It only suggests we should give white collar managers and office drones smaller work weeks. There is nothing in your evidence that suggests at all that we should reduce the national working week. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 1:00 AM I'm sorry, I looked at the wrong report. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 2:24 AM I will give a detailed answer later in the evening. Everyone can read the research report in the document below. Attachment file type: acrobat TheFourDayWeek-AssessingGlobalTrialsofReducedWorkTimewithNoReductioninPayF30112022.pdf 521.23 KB von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 5:36 AM Evening came. What does it mean? That I will comment in detail on Magnus' answer and the study itself. The answer will be made up in two parts: 1) Overview of the report and its evaluation 2) A response to Magnus' criticism. So. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 6:09 AM The work under discussion is a full report of the study, not the study itself. Therefore, it is initially pointless to search for the initial data themselves. Only results processed in a certain way are provided. Particular attention should be paid to the method of interpretation of these data and the opinion of researchers. Let's see what they were able to collect there.
The researchers collected basic data about companies, about employees. The basis of the data for their reasoning is surveys of employees and managers of the company before the experiment, during the trial period and at the end of the experiment. Surveys, rather than adequate measurement of physical parameters, are justified by the inability to collect the necessary data or with the complexity of their interpretation. This lowers the overall quality of the research, but it is impossible for both employees and company managers to lie in surveys at the same time. Therefore, data trends can be trusted, and numerical indicators can be treated with some skepticism. The surveys were also anonymous to avoid misrepresentation. On the one hand, there is no distortion of information, on the other hand, we lose the possibility of differentiation. Swing it.
The spread in the company's activities and the number of employees may be high - we do not know. But you can count the minimum number of non-white-collar people. I will do this in response to Magnus. Weighted average data were taken in the tables, which excludes the possibility of strong fluctuations (although it is difficult to prove this without initial data on hand). It is worth noting that the number of companies that were interviewed at the beginning is more than the same number at the end of the experiment. Hence the data jumps. But their scope can be seen from the tables. It's not small, but it's not big either. In addition, there is data from the trial period (between the usual work and the experiment itself), which slightly smooth out the difference in the number of respondents.
If we talk about the report generically, it is of very average quality, and questions to the authors raise a decent mountain, but in general it can be treated as a truth that correctly draws common features, but misses the contours. And now the analysis of Magnus's answer. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 6:28 AM I divided the companies into two groups: classic white-collar workers (marked in green, 63%) and workers of physical labor + those where it is allegedly impossible to increase efficiency - art, medicine, etc. (marked in red, 36%). But if you add it up, it will be less than 100% - an extra percentage will remain. I, for a good tone of conversation, will count towards the opponent:
1) 63 + 1 = 64% of white-collar companies
2) 36% of the others.
The "others" are two times less, but they have a serious impact on statistics. Image Again, this is a breakdown by company. Let's move on to the breakdown by employees. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 6:50 AM Based on the table, it can be seen that about 70% of white-collar workers, about 20% of blue-collar workers. I have interesting questions to the authors, on the topic of who these "others" are, which occupy 10%. But since most of the "white" jobs were listed, I believe they are blue-collar. Total:
1) About 72% are white-collar workers
2) About 28% are the rest.
Again, there are not very many non-white-collar workers, but they have a significant impact on statistics. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 6:52 AM Legal professional isn't white collar? cultural professional? The issue isn't that some of the data may include non-whitecollar workers. Its that it very clearly includes a vast majority of white collar workers, and makes no effort to differentiate the data. if the white collar workers are more productive +15, and the non-white collar works are actually worse - we would never know because they don't differentiate the levels of their data For example, if I have 1 billionaire and 1000 10-Dollar-aires, when I "Average" the population, everyone looks like a millionaire Again, there is nothing in this data that suggests we should lower the work week for the whole nation. It maybe, barely, ignoring its mistakes, suggests we should lower working times for office work. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 6:57 AM Can I ask you to write in one message? I don't think it will be difficult for you, but it will greatly simplify my life. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 6:58 AM As I said previously, we cannot "productivity" our way through timed tasks. If a shop needs to be open from 0900 to 2100, that's just how it is. Lowering the work week just means we need to buy more uniforms, more training, more handover time, more familiarity time - overhead costs. Lowering the work week won't magically make that shop more productive when its main task is time based. This also includes issues with farming - where Harvest is a timed task and labour is a sought after commodity. What will happen is people won't have a better life - they will just work for two farmers for 35 hours each and still come home with no overtime pay. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 7:01 AM Oh, thank you. Now it's much easier to translate. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 7:12 AM A small mistake, I'll redo it now. I'll fix it now. I noted that there is no differentiation. But you can evaluate the performance of blue-collar workers even so. I wanted to do it later, but okay.
We can estimate the worst result. To do this, we will distribute survey data into "two boxes" - white collars and blue collars. All negative results are sent to the blue-collar workers, the number of which is N. Let the number of negatively evaluated be N_neg. Now we find the value of the ratio N_neg / N and convert it to a percentage.
If it is > 50%, then even in the worst case, the efficiency of blue-collar workers increases. If less than 50%, then we are at a dead end. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 7:22 AM see my millionaire example to see why that cannot work. there is not enough data transparency in that report to meaningfully reverse engineer their data. they provide no descriptive stats. If they gave us some Means and Standard Deviations, sure, but they don't they just give us the last lump without any information to interpret how they got there they even insist they have 900+ lines of data - but then in the appendix admit they only had a 62% return rate, so its only 700 lines of data 700 lines divided over what appears to be something like 40 variables only barely fits inside the minimum standard ratio for multi-variate statistics von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 7:34 AM The report contains tables with the results of efficiency improvement surveys. There is data on the number of employees. The ratio N / N_neg will be easy to calculate.
In our case, yes, the number of people is close to 700. But keep in mind that although there are more than forty variables, the vast majority of them are practically interchangeable. If without extra data, then the number of variables becomes about 10, which is still not ideal, but also not as fatal as it was. It is necessary to look not only at the number of variables, but also at their relationship. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 7:37 AM I would believe that line of reasoning if they included a principle components Factor Analysis, but since they didn't, I won't. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 7:38 AM Good, I'll show you the extra variables with pictures. Table 1 - in the trash. Nothing of any importance. Image W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 7:43 AM I think the Assembly has had enough discussion of this report. And personally so have I von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 7:44 AM Table 2 - we agreed to divide everyone into white-collar and blue. + 2 variables. Image According to the report, and along with it - according to the bill - there are still discrepancies. Unfortunately, we still have something to discuss. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 7:46 AM No. I am happy with my reasoning and rationale. I am happy to vote against this bill still for the reasons I have made. I don't find the arguments in favour persuasive nor the continued dissection of a clearly opaque report from a lobby group that does not declare its conflicts of interest to be productive von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 7:56 AM I note that you have read the report extremely inattentively, and this would have removed a lot of questions from you.
Yes, they have some bias. But here the question arises: why should they promote it? They are not industrialists. They are non-workers. They have done too much for a simple ambitious person, too little sensationalism and a lot of clarifications for the yellow press.
Who are they? A little sloppy, hiding in the shadows, but honest researchers.
Therefore, I will vote for this bill with all my determination. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 7:56 AM I've read the report in detail thrice. I am finished reading the report. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 8:02 AM ...and they did it inattentively.
In fact, theses about a 35-hour working day are proved there, and not about a 32-hour one. It says there that they are based on polls and assume errors, and you didn't notice it. There is an opportunity to calculate the lower bar of blue-collar efficiency - and you don't see it point-blank.
What's the use of three times if it doesn't make it better? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 8:12 AM the issue is your reasoning is incorrect. For example, even if we assume very single non white collar worker was somehow meaningful to our debate (which it isn't), at your favourable ratio of 72:28 - we can make a reasonable result that proves my point entirely, and disproves yours - and you can't meaningfully refute it because the report does not include the necessary descriptive statistics Image in this example, all our non-white collar workers are actually 10% worse because of the change, but the average still remains 8% all because the white collar workers would be approx 15% better - and we have no way to know because they don't report the variable layers to make it very clear - this report does nothing to prove a causal inference of their data and does nothing for us to meaningfully reconstruct their data. Something that would usually be expected in a sociological research paper. Which is why I make an effort to move on because the reality is this paper is bad science and bad proof - and debating the strength of one paper is meaningless over the ultimate need to decide on this particular bill for our particular nation Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 8:19 AM I think this has been buried. Let me post it in 🔆｜lobby W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 8:20 AM OOC: It wasn't buried, it was simply not a priority while I work on the actual full report for the DPBR Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 8:20 AM 👍 von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 8:22 AM I did not talk about the exact calculation of the increased/decreased efficiency of blue-collar workers. I was talking about calculating the worst case for me. Here are some examples of calculus for you: von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 9:34 AM ...
Hm. Unpleasant news for me. I have calculated the spread in the best and worst case, and it is too large. The only thing that can be said for sure is that at least a quarter of blue-collar workers have not lost productivity.
It turns out that this is guaranteed to work with white-collar workers?
I urge you to suspend voting for at least a week so that I can apply for data to the authors of the report themselves and have time to get an answer from them. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 9:38 AM I think it would not be fair to the author, the Assembly, or the other bills in the queue to wait for a week to receive information that may or may not have any impact on this bill. If the research turns out to be more expansive, than you could propose an amendment to the bill again later. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 9:44 AM But all the bills (3 -6) awaiting their release are mine. There is nothing from the other members. And I'm ready to wait. Image Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 9:47 AM I believe the precedent is that bills that are going to delay a week are usually tabled and returned when the author is ready to debate. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 9:51 AM Pencavel, J. (2014). The Productivity of Working Hours. The Economic Journal, 125(589), 2052-2076. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12166
3.4. Some Conclusions about Hours and Output of Munition Workers The estimates above on the output-hours relationship suggest that, for most workers, weekly output rises with weekly hours of work although, after a point, the increase in output declines as more hours are worked. For hours of 48 or less, weekly output tends to be proportional to weekly hours worked and the decline in the marginal product of hours occurs after 48 weekly hours
This article has suggested a different reason for an optimising employer to care about the length of working hours: employees at work for a long time experience fatigue or stress that not only reduces his or her productivity but also increases the probability of errors, accidents and sickness that impose costs on the employer. Unlike the case of fixed employment costs, these concerns over work stress incline the firm not to extend the work hours of employees but to curtail them. The point at which fatigue sets in and the nature of the link between working hours and work effort or fatigue are likely to vary across types of work and across workers.
- Emphasis mine
von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 9:59 AM I'm afraid that in the heat of the discussion I forgot about one important thing. People in the experiment were not just cleaned for one day. They had a condition: four days of work for the effectiveness of five days. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 10:29 AM The 32-hour work week works not because they just gave odir another day off, but because they were given a condition: time in exchange for efficiency. It's not enough just to shorten the day (although I think I should have said this 180 massage earlier). Therefore, your data, although good-looking, is applicable as the basis for the maximum working day, and not as a refutation of more complex constructions.
Good, if the author of the bill agrees, then we will postpone it for a week while I wait for an answer. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 10:31 AM And I lead you back here W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 10:32 AM And here also von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 10:36 AM While we are not sucked into a cyclical whirlpool of messages, I will say that even a manager can cope with his duties faster. And where it is impossible to increase the quantity, you can increase the quality.
Using the example of a store. Someone has to work all five days. But one can work more efficiently for 4 days, and the remaining one is the fifth day. You can also smear it by month, then the second person will work not 1 laziness per week, but a period of four days, at the end of which he is replaced. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 10:37 AM Which again only is meaningful if the person can be replaced. Time based work proscribes this idea of trading productivity for less work hours You cant magically find an extra day of patients to be a more productive doctor within the week You cant get the customers to shop in four days instead of five You cant make the tractor drive faster or the combine thresh faster von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 10:40 AM Regarding this. One worker will harvest faster, even if it takes four days. He only needs one assistant to replace him in the next period. And given our high unemployment, there are people from where to get. Where qualifications are needed, you can start a preferential training process to speed up the process. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 10:40 AM With what money. This is a magic wand. A hand wave solution von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 10:41 AM And salaries will remain the same, with an increase in labor productivity. Unchanged salary, unchanged result, but 20% less time - these are the conditions of a 32-hour working week. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 10:43 AM So... people are more productive and we don't pay them more for being more productive? Seems a bit like wage theft von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 10:45 AM People just do their work faster without increasing their stress levels. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 10:51 AM Mr. von Zeppelin, I don't mean to insult, but you've clearly never worked a manual labor job with that attitude. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 10:53 AM You just don't know where and how I worked. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 10:56 AM Well, in my younger years, I worked for a year as a painter. "Do work faster" is not really something you can do in that field. You have to take your time, let things dry and set, and the like. Having worked alongside other workers in the construction industry, I know it is the same for them. There are simply industries in which technology and human limitations are at their more or less peak right now and having them "do work faster" is unreasonable and, in many cases, impossible. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 10:59 AM In short: when my family moved to the land plot, there was a lot of garbage on it (really a lot), a lot of buildings made of foliage (a damn heavy tree, damn it) and a house somewhere from the beginning of the XX century (although there was electricity, and thanks for that). It was necessary to clear the site of all this and build a new house out of concrete blocks. It was a long five years of hard physical labor with parallel gardening (although as if they were over. there is still a year left).
And there has always been such an option: if you have fulfilled the daily norm, you begin to rest. And you know? This made my job better and freed me up time for self-development, which I successfully used. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 11:04 AM I can also say about this: my younger brother worked as an artist - painted the walls of the temple.
He had a volume of work for about two months. But he deliberately kept it so that he could do everything faster. As a result, he received the money a month later with a third. So don't tell me fairy tales about the impossibility of acceleration. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 11:06 AM Neither of those examples a) are in a work environment where there are multiple jobs to be done, not just one and b) address the issue that the speed of the work now is at the near-maximum it can be. Contractors almost always overbudget time for a project; it's a good business practice. Just because your brother was given two months to complete the job doesn't mean that anyone expected him to take that long. That's the point. You're not talking about reducing the working hours not the projected hours. There are simply some jobs that cannot be "made faster", either due to external factors like paint drying fully or drywall mud setting or internal factors like having a physical limit on how quickly you can cut in a room or hang up drywall. Or, if we will take a look at agriculture, there is a hard cap on how quickly you can harvest a crop, given the physical limitations of machinery and humans and the natural limitations of weather conditions. You cannot simply "do the work faster" because it is already at the most efficient point, given the number of factors. I'm not against reducing working hours when reasonable, but to say that all industries can just lop off a day of work and just "work faster" is ridiculous von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 11:12 AM 1) Dig a hole with a diameter of 3 meters and the same depth 2) Process 10 acres with a hoe, take the goods to the neighboring village by bicycle. 3) Move concrete blocks from point A to point B 4) Participate in the construction of the roof. 5)...
Is it exactly the same job?
Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 11:12 AM How long did those four steps take you to complete? von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 11:18 AM I did not count, but taking into account their duplications, 2 years. But they had to be done in parallel. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/13/2023 11:20 AM Okay, then lets consider "Process 10 acres with a hoe, take the goods to the neighboring village by bicycle" 10 acres with a hoe by hand is a lot of ground to cover. Say it takes you a week to do, in full, 8 hours a day just hoeing. What you're asking is that they process the same 10 acres, which took them the entire 40 hour week to do, in 32 hours. I'm sure whoever is hoeing will simply take the hoe and beat you over the head with it. Or, more reasonably, quit, which is exactly what I would do. This idea that "just work faster" is a rational and reasonable business model is fanciful and has no backing of any kind. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 8:39 PM I think I need to tell you more.
There are 10 acres of land. There is a hoe. And I, who planned to spend a week (if luck is on my side) differently. I knew from experience that at a normal pace I could do the job in a week. But I didn't really want to communicate with the earth and grass, besides, there was no other job waiting for me.
I worked faster in the first three days, and on the fourth, since the four-day norm was fulfilled, I arranged a day off. Then two more days of accelerated work, and on the seventh day, for the sake of justice, I note that I received help, albeit very modest. By the end of the first half of the seventh day, the work was completed, and half of the rest day was in my pocket.
I didn't feel any more tired than usual. A slight acceleration took almost no strength, but it gave me a weekend. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 9:37 PM I think we have reached an impasse and it is pointless to continue the discussion. We have:
1) Scientifically documented evidence, to which I have no complaints (although, if desired, which I do not have, they can be issued), it is possible from Magnus, who set the maximum work bar at 48 hours per week.
2) Controversial data on 32 working weeks, with the condition of increasing efficiency. The data shows that this definitely works for white-collar workers, but it is unknown to what extent it increases their productivity. There is no evidence for blue-collar workers at all.
In total, I propose either the status quo (35 hours a week), or make it mandatory only for white-collar workers. Any other opinions? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/13/2023 10:13 PM The status quo is presently 40 von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 10:41 PM https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_Reasonable_Wage_Act,_653
1.2.1 Overtime is defined as working more than 30 minutes over the maximum workweek hours for their employment type or for more than 12 hours in a 36-hour period for full-time employees.
I don't quite understand how to interpret this. The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Reasonable Wage Act, 653 PASSED on 23 APRIL 2023 with 22 Aye, 2 Nay, and 3 Abstain. In order to establish a fair and beneficial workplace for all citizens of Kodiak, the General Assembly of the Republic of Kodiak hereby enacts the Reasonable Wage Act which shall Amend the Labour Act (Inter). Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/13/2023 10:49 PM I believe that portion is referencing working 12+ hours, in a 36-hour period (1.5 days), which refers to condensed work hours that fall below the standard work week. For example you could work 15 hours a day (consecutively) for about half the week, for exactly 40 hours total that week. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 10:55 PM Out of 40 hours, 4 hours will be considered excessive? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/13/2023 11:06 PM I didn't count to be honest, with my example, but essentially any 30 minutes above 12 hours of consecutive work in a 36 hour timeblock would be treated as overtime. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 11:08 PM A little cloudy. Do I understand correctly how it works? A person has worked 36 hours, then another 12 hours, and only the rest of the work is considered overtime? Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/13/2023 11:20 PM I don't know if this helps but here is a simplistic example. You can imagine there may be overlapping hours depending on when someone starts other days of work. In this example I chose to only show one day's overtime to keep the diagram simple. Image (Boxes not to scale!) von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 11:23 PM Oh, now everything is falling into place. Thank you. Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/13/2023 11:26 PM I'm happy with a compromise of white-collar-only Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/13/2023 11:30 PM I mean I’m not against it as long as non white color workers can still get these hours if they want von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/13/2023 11:44 PM To do this, we need a state program, for which, unfortunately, we do not have money. We will have to rely on the cooperation of trade unions. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/13/2023 11:45 PM Unfortunately I agree I will add the white color only part in the morning Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/14/2023 6:30 AM If an employee works for more than 12 hours during a 36 hour period, they are considered overtime Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/14/2023 7:53 PM While I support 35 hour weeks, and 4-day work weeks. I would still prefer to see a phased/incremental approach to this rather than a 0 to 1 approach. Steadily reducing hours over years rather than all at once, so that struggling local industries have the breathing room to adapt, plan ahead, and even settle into any benefits. I think I've talked enough about this though, so it is probably not a good use of time to go into that discussion again. There are clearly differing views on this. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/14/2023 8:23 PM I agree. Perhaps we start with a 38 hour week? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/14/2023 8:28 PM or perhaps we can start with a 40 hour week and not mess with it Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/14/2023 8:29 PM That's not starting. That's where we are already at. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/14/2023 8:36 PM Correct. Charlotte Groves (Juliette)[KWP] — 05/14/2023 8:46 PM Full disclosure but given economic data and a present crisis involving an exodus of businesses from Kodiak due to the lack of confidence in this economy (and in fact the current DBPR should already be enough data, even if one isn't privy to additional data just yet). I would not even be confident that we can start any planned work week adjustment this year, let alone this term. My criticism is that if this were to pass, it would be far better incrementally than going to 100% "overnight". I am saying this despite fully supporting the ideal - I do not think now is the time. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/17/2023 10:02 AM the changes have been made emergency services and agriculture workers will not be affected by this amendment and this change will take place over the span of 11 years until reaching 35 hours 2 hours per 3 years Grant Shadbolt [CKA] — 05/17/2023 11:45 PM Retail W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/18/2023 1:08 AM I appreciate the efforts of the members, but I still must strongly oppose any change to working conditions while our economy continues to circle the drain. Alfonso Sadurin (DPPK) — 05/18/2023 7:49 PM What is impeding our economy is the wasteful spending of the Government! Do not place the burden towards the workers who have been working hard to make ends meet. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 8:05 PM It seems to me that your statement has little to do with this bill.
Perhaps neither side of the discussion can offer the other anything new. Therefore, if @Jonn Stevens (DPPK) agrees, I want to start voting. Either we take a risk and conduct a kind of experiment, or we leave everything as it is. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/18/2023 8:07 PM I agree I motion for an early vote if does happen to be more of a detriment than a benefit I will be the first to repeal it- Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/18/2023 8:07 PM I just have issues with the "this change shall take effect over the span of 11 years at a decrease of 2 work hours per 3 years until 35 hours is reached" Legislation shouldn't be about future integration, but what will take effect right now I will also note that 11 is not divisible by 3 Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/18/2023 8:09 PM I am taking advice from Charlotte I have agreed to taking more reasonable approach, and implement it slowly overtime to get the best effect. Also, if there’s any danger signs with the economy we can repeal von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 8:10 PM 11/3 = 3,(6) 🙂 Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/18/2023 8:11 PM "Divisible" usually implies evenness. Any number is divisible by any other number (except 0), but not every number is even. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/18/2023 8:12 PM Or we could just simply define the work week now as 38 hours and move from there as the economy is capable of dealing with it rather than relying on a (unevenly defined) number of years tied to work week hour reduction that has no ability to tell if the economy is ready or not. I will also note that 1.4 conflicts with 1.1 and 1.2's defintions von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 8:14 PM I was joking, so I used 🙂 . What you are talking about is called "completely divided". And so, any number can be divided by any. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/18/2023 8:14 PM I'm not saying that's my personal opinion either. I'm with Ms. Groves on the subject: "I would not even be confident that we can start any planned work week adjustment this year, let alone this term. " We are just not in the space for this bill von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/18/2023 8:17 PM We'll see at the vote (after the amendments of the form "takes effect now"). John Cray(DPPK) — 05/19/2023 3:43 AM I have one observation that I would like to point out. There are schools where I live, including mine, where the amount of time we're at school exceeds 35 hours including breaks. This can be a problem for schools where full-time school employees will be paid extra after this bill passes than before, for the same amount of work. I do not think this is fair for the rest of the people I do applaud the rest of the bill, though Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/20/2023 10:25 PM
If there is no further discussion or objections, the vote will be called in 24 hours. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/20/2023 10:31 PM No objection EasyPoll BOT
— 05/21/2023 9:38 PM
Question Do you approve of this amendment to the Labour Act?
Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain
Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓░░░░░░░ [6 • 27%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [10 • 45%] 🇨 ▓▓▓░░░░░░░ [6 • 27%] 22 users voted
- alarm_clock: Poll already ended (a day ago)
- spy: Anonymous Poll
- one: allowed choice
- lock: No other votes allowed
Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: a820331d Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/21/2023 9:39 PM
@Assembly Member Vote is now opened and will close in three days. Mivod Hlaja [NUP] OP
— 05/24/2023 10:32 PM
With 6 Ayes, 10 Nays, and 6 Abstains, this Amendment to the Labour Act has been rejected by the Assembly and will be archived in 24 hours. von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/24/2023 11:29 PM It's unfortunate. We'll prepare a little better next time.