That's it, I'm moving to Finland
post
Did she push for this when she was prime minister?
The idea floated in august 2019 when Sanna Marin was Minister for Transport and Communications (she did a tweet about that). Since then, it has not been introduced officially to the government agenda. (Source : Reuters)
My first thought as well. So often we see ex leader spouting this type of thing after the fact. But during their time, they toed the party line to keep the working class down.
That's the right direction but it needs to make sure that the wages stay the same, otherwise everything becomes a part-time job and people are forced to find an additional job to get to their original earnings.
Either way, we need Universal Basic Income
She did campaign for it back in 2019, wasn't popular within government then and especially now. Maybe next government might atleast test it?
4 days work week with 10 hours per working day is reasonable, I will take it anytime.
No.
40 hours a week isn't some magic number that we have to adhere to. We should be working less.
So is a 4 day work week with 8 hours per working day.
I honestly think a lot of hours we spend working are spent "working." I know my, and my colleagues, 40 hour weeks certainly are less than 40 hours but I also don't get paid enough so I think it's a fair trade off.
I do get my shit done though and work late if I have to so it isn't like I'm screwing anyone.
Seriously though I think we need to accept that we just don't need the standard to be 40 hours of labor as the expected time. We arrived at it artificially and can just as easily walk away from that and into a brighter future with less work and more time with our family and friends. I'm sure we would even see productivity gains as folks are happier and healthier.
I for one want to spend less time with my family.
That’s equally valid of course, but unless you mean your birth family and not your own, the more appropriate and commendable route would be to remove yourself from the wrong family situation and figure out a new, working, one. It’s no benefit to anyone, least to yourself, if it’s not working out. Everyone will be happier for it ultimately, even if it requires some tough choices and a whole bunch of compromises, adaptation and potential heartbreak in the short term.
I mean the same is true for birth family too, but at least there it doesn’t matter as much, since often the first priority and the more day-to-day impactful one will be your own immediate family, so you can simply minimize the need to ever interact with them.
And there’s the moral implication, that you didn’t choose your birth family. But you did choose your own immediate family. So there’s a responsibility there in the latter that isn’t present in the former.
Unless the situation is that you didn’t choose your immediate family either. If it’s not working out, it’s even more of a reason to figure out a way out.
Unless there’s no way out. In which case, and only in this case, your sentiment seems agreeable and hopefully the situation doesn’t last. And if it does, hopefully you get as much time off as possible.
1-size NEVER fits all:
Neither legislating a 60h workweek, nor a 40h workweek, nor a 6d workweek, nor a 4d workweek, CAN fit all diverse kinds of people.
Some are unhappy when NOT working all the time!
Many autistic workaholics would need2 jobs, to be happy in her idea of good, but it wouldn't ever work right ( 8d work every 7d week??
There NEEDS to be some way for there to be 2 categories of employees: workaholics & humans,
& the measured higher social-support ( including late-life health-care ) amplification for the workaholics obliges a higher tax-rate for companies employing those, in proportion with the percentage of 'em working that way.
( I'd be in the workaholics category, not in the "family" category, just so you understand I'm deeming my own category to be more-costly to social-support systems.
But the Industrial Revolution was on us, not on the family-people.
We are the blockheads who keep bashing-away at making technology work right, see? )
/\ _
Overtime exists. You'll just get paid more if you work 60h. If your employer allows you to work that much.
Sorry, my point is that there are fundamentally-different-motivations, & that fundamentally-different-motivations have to be treated differently, legally .. exactly the same as people-without-family can probably work significantly more hours per week than can people-with-children-to-care-for.
It isn't a question of just putting overtime above 40h/week, it is a question of having 2 distinct populations in the same workforce, & you don't make the law ignore 1 of them, not the with-family people, AND not the without-family people.
_ /\ _
You may not know this..
Many businesses put employee overtime hours "in the bank", so they never pay overtime: they just provide you with regular-pay when you're on holiday.
Illegal, but with bribed gov't, it'll never be stopped.
Other employers just disallow the extra-hours.
It's common enough..
"aren't you feeling lucky to be employed??"
is a significant threat, in some job-markets..
_ /\ _
The idea is to place an upper limit on corps for the definition of a full time work week. If you want to work more, go ahead, but your employer shouldn't be able to compel you to work past that max number of hours in return for benefits. It's tricky because there's a legal component and a cultural component to it. Also some businesses will push back (especially service industry) because they will need to change their whole hiring and scheduling.
four-day workweek of six hours a day.
If I condensed my work into 4x6 I might actually be working most of the time I’m at work instead of scrolling Lemmy aimlessly
So she’s saying that the work week should
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
Finnish early
Reminds me of a thing from work that I think about pretty often.
I worked someplace that prided itself on being "data driven". They put stuff on the company tshirts like "Data > Feelings". Real pretentious shit, but they seemed to pride themselves on making reasonable decisions based on facts and evidence. They'd made fun of other companies for doing stuff based on the whims of CEOs.
One of the many articles came out about 4 day workweeks being beneficial for everyone involved. At one of the company meetings, someone brought it up and asked the CEO if we could look into it. He just said, "We're not doing that." Didn't ask to read the article. Didn't look at data. No discussion. Just a snap decision: no.
People are emotional creatures and many of them are stupid, too. Stupid and spiteful.
Former
How useful.
Finland seems like a reasonable country. Every now and then there are some good ideas from them in the news. Maybe time to learn Finnish and move.
Note to self: move to finland
Edit: where I live they also introduced a 4 day workweek. You do your 40h in 4 days instead of 5 and now you have an extra day a week ( to recover from all that overtime ).
This is the flipside of workers not getting the value of increased productivity over the last 40 years. Yes, we could be getting paid more, but we could (alternatively or also) be working a lot less to produce the same economic output as our parents did.
Unfortunately, this is something only a country that already has social safety nets and livable wages can even propose, because if we're all kept to subsistence, we'll work more anyway (because we have to).
Hate to be Nancy Negative, but it doesn't matter much that the former Pm says this. If the current pm said it, then it would be newsworthy. I also dislike kittens, rainbows and responses based on wishful thinking.

top 33 comments