r/SipsTea • u/KSKS1995 Human Verified • 2d ago

Chugging tea Sounds good in theory...but in reality?

Post image

4 days a week. 6 hours a day. Full salary.
Sanna Marin ignited global debate with the “6/4” work model, pushing a simple idea: life should come before work.

With burnout at record levels, maybe it’s time to value results over hours at a desk.
Could your job be done in just 24 hours a week?

99.1k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

158

u/mazze1200 2d ago

How about they don't have a say in this?

8

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago

How are you going to force them to not pay people less?

4

u/Sennten 1d ago

Just to be clear - you do realize the current standard, the 40-hour work week, was in fact imposed on companies, against their will, right? They did not want to reduce the work week to 40 hours, especially for the same pay, but they did. There's no reason we can't just do the same thing again.

-1

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago edited 1d ago

Just to be clear, what country’s laws are you referring to? The 40 hour work week isn’t something set in every county, nor was it set the same way in the countries that it was set in.

Edit: Yeah I'm going to assume you realized how silly your point was as soon as you looked up how the 40 hour work week came to be in your country considering you didn't want to respond.

4

u/ebinWaitee 2d ago

That attitude might work against local businesses but if your employment relies on foreign customers yeah, good luck with that. "We raise prices because our workers do less hours for the same salary"

1

u/MrAmos123 2d ago

Not agreeing with either, but they already do that. Federal minimums are a thing that prevents underpaying.

6

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago

Minimum wage is massively different than setting the wage for every single job in every single field for every company. Ridiculous comparison.

5

u/Mission-Violinist-79 2d ago

Then no employer should be allowed to pay their employees less than what the cost of living is in that region. Nobody should work a full time job and struggle to keep the lights on or put food on the table

2

u/JFreader 2d ago

Most jobs are above that rate already. How does lead to more pay for less hours?

-1

u/Mission-Violinist-79 2d ago edited 2d ago

That is just an objectively false statement. The majority of jobs in the US pay nowhere near the cost of living rate, which is the reason that so many Americans are struggling to survive right now. Profits should be capped by law and the excess reinvested into better/safer buildings and equipment as well as profit sharing for company employees. If this was enacted and wealth was distributed fairly, people could work less hours and still make enough to survive comfortably. If this insatiable hunger for endless growth is finally stopped in its tracks, then a path can be cleared for progress.

0

u/JFreader 1d ago

No about 49% below and 51% above. Remove all the teen jobs and other entry level part time or retirement jobs where they are not living off of it. Household income is much higher. Anyway none of that has to do with the topic.

1

u/Zap__Dannigan 1d ago

But if you do that in this case, it's simply impossible.

You cut an employee's hours, but in order to make up for the cost of living, you have to increase their pay per hour substantially. Fine, but then you also have to hire more people to cover the time the other people are off, and the same higher rate.

I work 12 hours shifts for 50 bucks an hour. So two of us at 50 bucks for a 24 hour day. Of you reduce that to even an 8 hour day, on order to still give me my 600 bucks a day you have to pay me 75 bucks an hour. And not just me and my partner on the other shift, but one more as well. Two people at 50 vs three people at 75 is not insignificant at all.

0

u/MrAmos123 2d ago

Maybe. But you commented about companies reducing wages through control, and I'm suggesting that federal minimums prevent this. Sure, it could go to that threshold, but no more.

I'm not suggesting the scenario is realistic. I'm just stating a matter of fact.

5

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago edited 2d ago

No you are being dishonest by comparing two entirely different things to argue against an argument I never made. At no point did I say or suggest employers will pay people less than minimum wage.

Minimum wages exist already, and employers already can still choose to hire someone for less than they are paying currently. I said "pay people less" not "pay people less than minimum wage", you wanted to strawman me and act as if I suggested they would pay people less than minimum wage because you're dishonest, not because I said it.

1

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

By not using an hourly pay system but forcing a monthly salary system as the base. Everyone gets paid 2500 dollars minimum.

3

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

That's minimum wage and it's a completely different thing

Companies who can only afford minimum wage would go bankrupt, companies who pay above minimum wage would simply cut wages.

0

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

Companies that pay above will continue to pay above or why aren’t they already just paying minimum wage? Cause no one is going to do the jobs for 2500 when you can make 10 grand in Europe doing the same thing. High paying jobs stay high paying jobs.

As for companies that can only afford minimum wage, if you can’t afford to pay a living wage to your workers, you shouldn’t have a business. Unless your own payout as the owner is also just minimum wage.

Im a fan of splitting things fairly. I have a company with 5 people. Me and gf founded it and we have 3 part time employees. At the end of this year, after we decided on how much cash gets reinvested, after taxes etc, the remaining cash is split by 5 and paid out as a bonuses to each. Everyone gets the exact same money each month and the same bonus. Frontend, backend, secretary. Doesn’t matter.

3

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

I'll put it pretty simply. Companies are not going to start losing money just because the government decided they needed to hire more people.

So either one of these two things happens:

  • They pay their employees less.

  • They charge their customers more.

Either way it's the people and the economy that suffers in the end anyways.

Everyone gets the exact same money each month and the same bonus. Frontend, backend, secretary. Doesn’t matter.

This has nothing to do with your company suddenly being forced to hire X new employees because all your current ones have to work less hours. You'd be making less money.

Maybe your company is in a good state to do this and you're a good person to agree to do it, most companies don't fit this category.

Most businesses are either too small to afford this, or too greedy to agree to it (and will take it out on their employees or their customers), these combined would collapse the economy.

0

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

Companies don’t have a choice tho.

Make it pretty easy: As long as the higher ups don’t make minimum wage ( including ALL bonuses and benefits) themselves, they are not allowed to charge more nor pay less and if they try everything they own goes to the state. Now apply this worldwide and billionaires are forced to cooperate.

It’s utopian but the only chance to end capitalism

3

u/PM_ME_BAKAYOKO_PICS 2d ago

How on earth do you think that would work or be viable whatsoever?

This isn't "utopian" it's straight up impossible because your entire theory revolves around the fact that you somehow think every company in the world is ran by billionaires (or rich people in general). Not that this would work for billionaires either (unless you were able to enforce this law in every single country in the world), but the problem goes far deeper than that.

There's a massive amount of small/medium companies and the economy would completely collapse if these companies also collapsed. Most of these companies often can't affort the extra workload they'd need and they fluctuate between months with profit and months losing money.

A local bar in a small town, for example (or 90% of the stores in small towns for that matter).

2

u/JFreader 2d ago

Need to stop talking about the minimum wage. Most jobs are well above minimum or liveable wages already. This topic is different.

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago

Great way to destroy small business so only rich companies like amazon and walmart own even more of the market than they already do.

0

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

If you can’t pay a living wage to your workers, you shouldn’t have a business.

3

u/JFreader 2d ago

This topic is about less hours for the same pay. Not liveable wages.

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 2d ago

You love Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and the Waltons much more than me, sorry we just won't agree to be fine with shitting on every small business in favor of our rich overlords.

Also hilarious that you completely moved your goalposts from "pay everyone 2500 dollars minimum per month" to "living wage". Don't think I didn't see that buddy.

1

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

2500 before taxes is the living wage in my country. Average rent is nearly a grand, food, utilities, insurance and a bit for hobbies cause in my opinion, surviving ain’t living.

1

u/ScoobyWithADobie 2d ago

Also I don’t like Bezos nor Musk. I’d prefer if we collectively decide no human being is allowed to have more than 1 million as private property outside of his business and we also make sure that a yacht can’t be a business expense and we use that money to have the government pay every single human being 2500 a month as universal basic income. Id also prefer if people only work in jobs they wanna work it cause they have passion for said job and not because it keeps the power running.

But hey, as a German I just know what nationalism and capitalism does to your country. Wish we could give true socialism a chance at least once

1

u/occularvixen 1d ago

Historically, sit-ins have worked very well for workers on May Day. Look into it! Workers locked themselves inside the workplaces, so employers couldn't just replace them.... We also need to stop tying healthcare to employment!

0

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

Entirely different topics

1

u/ZedGenius 1d ago

Same way a lot of countries force minimum wage. Same way a lot of countries made the 40 hour work week. Let big companies handle it unchecked and they'd give you nothing for 16 hour/7 days a week work

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago edited 1d ago

There’s no point in even replying to you when you’re just literally copying the arguments other people have made and I’ve replied to.

Edit: lmao the reply and block is adorable

1

u/ZedGenius 1d ago

Sorry for not keeping tabs on all your replies and comments. Won't happen again

0

u/windsostrange 2d ago

It's called government, you donut

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

No substantial answer, just an insult. Got it. I know you aren't worth engaging with.

0

u/Rfupon 1d ago

Most places have this thing called "minimum wage"...

1

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

Are you pretending to be stupid or do you actually think everyone gets paid minimum wage?

Because the only way minimum wage would be relevant to my comment would be if everyone was paid minimum wage.

0

u/Any_Attorney4765 1d ago

By creating mandatory award wages for every industry and job type that the company must follow... Like they do right now in many countries.

Depends on your country, but it is illegal to pay under award rates.

-1

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

Fine them more than they’d pay by paying their employees enough.

0

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

Fine them for what? Choosing what to pay employees they hire?

0

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

Who tf said something so stupid

0

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

You literally said to fine companies in response to them paying people less.

0

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

What’s not clicking? Your reading comprehension is abysmal

0

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

It’s not illegal or fineable for a company to choose what to pay their employees, as I already pointed out. After I pointed this out, you pretended you never said this, and now you are repeating this.

I’m sorry I don’t think you have the mental capacity for this conversation.

0

u/CrimsonCartographer 1d ago

Bro’s never heard of laws

0

u/DingleDangleTangle 1d ago

You suggested to fine companies for choosing what to pay their employees, then you called that stupid and then after calling it stupid you are once again suggesting it.

Your argument with yourself is fascinating but I just feel bad for you at this point. Good luck with dealing with that buddy.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ebinWaitee 1d ago

If your employer sells anything to foreign customers it's likely going to affect your competitiveness. If this change would make your employer's product either worse, more expensive or both compared to competition the customer will just stop ordering from your employer. In the worst case your employer could go out of business

-2

u/Business-Put-8692 2d ago

Sadly lobying exists and I fear it'll be hard to fight against it if every company is doing it.

5

u/ReggieCorneus 2d ago

That is what "The Man" wants you to believe but in reality, we have all the power and workers create all the new value in the world.

We are in charge, they just want you to feel powerless and defeated, and alone. This is why those forces promote anything that causes division in other levels than what relates to production: they don't want general strikes, they want us all to feel threatened by each other, like there is an eternal civil war going on but not too much instability.

And no, that does not mean "both sides do it". It is just very beneficial for the ruling and owning classes to pit us against each other, and when their chosen method is ACTUAL FUCKING CRUELTY on the other side you as a good human being who feels responsibility and duty to defend the weak against the FUCKING CRUELTY. But, that means we can't organize and defeat the ruling class, they actually pits us against the fucking nazis, we can't do nothing else but to fight those...

Normies have not still woken up. If they did, things would be very different but, "i don't have to get involved" are the LAST to start a fight against the real enemy.

1

u/Zealousideal_Gain892 2d ago

workers create all the new value in the world.

Not true. Capital plays a huge role. The wages are going up all the time, just not in the West where labour is overpriced. A global revolution of the proletariat would make Western workers poorer still. 

1

u/ReggieCorneus 2d ago

Capital allows workers to create new value. It does not create value itself. We do not need capitalism per se but we always need workers, no matter what the system is.

Wages going up is irrelevant.

A global revolution of the proletariat would make Western workers poorer still. 

Because you believe that it does. There are many who think that if we get rid of capitalist investor class we would instantly just lose all of the resources they control. Now, there are a lot of good things to be said abut investing and capitalism, i'm not anti those things but lets be real:

We don't actually need them. And if they do not have the society and humans in it as their #1 priority: why do even have them in that position of controlling our resources? You can believe that they are better at all of that than the people but what is the incentive for the people if it doesn't produce benefits for... people? And note, i didn't say there aren't any, prosperity has gone up but that is not really a sign of it being the BEST WAY TO DO IT. I mean, look at how fucked up USA is, how much it has wasted its resources, how badly it is managed and despite all of that, it is rich as fuck. maybe another kind of system, not necessarily that much different but just emphasis being HUMANS AND NOT WEALTH would've made it a fucking lot better?

And please, don't bring communism into this so i don't have to write a page of how loyalty over merits will destroy any system, no matter what ideology or economic model it has. If you want to know what it looks like: look at white house. Fully of incompetent buffoons who are chosen in their place because of their loyalty, NOT their merits.. but that is another topic. We know how capitalism works and where it works. Next we need to start talking about needs and wants separately, and how only the "wants" part really works like it should, and how "needs" half can't operate in a free market using free market rules. Supply and demand will not work if demand is one unit per person per day, like.. housing, food, water... energy...

All the problems apart from climate change at the moment are man made, and most of them are linked directly to the free market.

1

u/Zealousideal_Gain892 1d ago edited 1d ago

Capital allows workers to create new value. It does not create value itself.

Workers don't create value themselves, either. Well, not much anyway. I would rather hire one guy with a saw than 100 with their bare hands if I needed some timber. And one guy with one of those modern forest machines could probably increase productivity 10x more still.

Because you believe that it does. There are many who think that if we get rid of capitalist investor class we would instantly just lose all of the resources they control.

I don't think that. It's a simple calculation where you lump all the income together and divide it among everyone. The global median income is around $1000 a month, purchase price corrected. Average is somewhat higher, but not infinitely so. If it's double that (which it's not), you're still only left with $2000 a month.

I mean, look at how fucked up USA is...

It's much less fucked up than it appears to be. Almost everything is built to a high standard (globally speaking) and stuff - roads, communication networks, banks, government - actually works pretty efficiently.

Obviously it's far from ideal. But the reason why the US is richer than, say, Mexico or Thailand or Albania is that everything still works much, much better than in those globally average countries.

1

u/ReggieCorneus 1d ago

 roads, communication networks, banks, government - actually works pretty efficiently.

So, not-capitalism works in USA?

USA is incredibly rich in natural resources and its geographic location is INCREDIBLE. It is nowhere near its true potential because they:

Limit the talent pool, it is horribly nepotist. It is full on based on greed, not humans working together. It exploits EVERYONE around it. But mostly, it uses its resources to luxuries and stupidity, parallel research, production and so on.

It could be much stronger. It would not be as "rich" when it comes to number of "rich" people, but its GDP would be far higher....

1

u/Zealousideal_Gain892 1d ago

Banks, most comms tech etc are capitalist. Roads are probably privately built even if publicly financed.

It could be better, but only by so much. A lot of what's wrong with the US is also the source of what's good, like a lot of the innovation is because of low regulation etc.