• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    From the article…

    The Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act would also protect workers’ pay and benefits to ensure there’s no loss in pay, according to a press release.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Says nothing about loss in hours.

      Remember, when you’re paid hourly, you can lose hours and not lose pay.

      Unless the employment contract already has guaranteed hours.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Says nothing about loss in hours.

        I’m assuming that’s covered as a part of this…

        ensure there’s no loss in pay

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          And you’d be wrong. Companies would still be paying them at whatever rate they were paid at. Most jobs don’t come with specifically guaranteed hours, however.

          It’s a technicality, yes, but it’s also a very important distinction. They’re not losing pay. They’re losing hours. The consequence is the same; but short of minimum wage increases; there’s no mechanism for the US Government to dictate wages to individual companies. Particularly when they were never party to that contract in the first place.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            If you are correct, then the bill won’t work, because it won’t have the support of all the hourly workers.

            I’m assuming that Bernie and Co are smart enough to realize that, so they would make sure any bill that they wrote would cover that scenario that you’re describing, and not just waste all of our time.

            That’s why I believe the part of the article I quoted earlier is factual, and covers what you’re speaking about.