Has Anyone Noticed the Fall in Average Weekly Hours Worked?

[Hannah Bell]

Apparently word has not gotten out to the WSJ. An article discussing job loss and the prospect of a jobless recovery never noted the issue.

In fact, those of us with access to the secret data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (i.e. Internet users), know that average weekly hours have fallen by 2.4 percent since the beginning of the downturn. This is the equivalent of another 3.3 million jobs lost. This decline has been especially pronounced in manufacturing where hours worked have declined by an average of 4.1 percent.

This decline is important, because when employers first start to see additional demand in an upturn, they will more likely increase the hours worked by the existing workforce than add new workers. This is another reason why we may expect to see the economy grow for quite a while before it adds a significant number of jobs.


- Dean Baker

http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=07&year=2009&base_name=has_anyone_noticed_the_fall_in

[pinto]

1. I work for a county public health department. Cuts in hours have become fairly common.

40 -> 30, in some cases 40 ->24.

[abumbyanyothername]

2. I saw this last week sometime.

The economy is not in good shape. I am reluctant to help people put deals together, because I feel strongly that the buyers (whom I would be representing) are going to get hosed big time.

[CNHander]

3. Decreasing the minimum wage would help a little

If employers are becoming ever more leery of hiring new employees at a time like this, because of the risk involved, would it make sense to repeal the recently passed increase in the minimum wage? After all, if more people are allowed to work for less, and the employers don't have to pay them more than they want, then there would be more people working for more hours, which would help the economy, wouldn't you think?

[Hannah Bell]

4. no, i don't think so. nice try though.

[abumbyanyothername]

5. You're burning up your brand new ID already?

Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

6. What utter nonsense. The number of people hired is based on the amount of work there is to do.

No one is going to hire two people to do the work that one person can do, regardless of how cheap the wages are.

[CNHander]

12. But if wages are lowered, the employer may prefer

to hire eight $6.55/hour workers, for instance, than seven $7.25/hour workers.

If wages are allowed to be elastic, the "amount of work there is to do" becomes more elastic as well. For instance, today, a restaurant may want to increase the quality if its service by hiring another cook, which it would value at $7/hour. But if it was required by law to pay the cook $7.25/hour (in other words, if the wages aren't elastic) then the restaurant will not hire another cook. But if the minimum wage was $6.55, as it was a few months ago, then the restaurant WOULD hire that extra cook, giving that cook a job.

[devilgrrl]

14. Why bother lowering wages when you can just hire illegals for even less?

:crazy:

[Patchuli]

17. That only works for burger flipping.

I would not dine at a restaurant that paid 'the chef' $6.25! And what's up with the "elastic wage" deal?! Is "elastic" a words game one of those frame games that cons like to play? I can just imagine what would happen if our employers were allowed to decide how much to pay us each week. Something tells me you are management or something for some slave labor establishment?

[CNHander]

33. It's only an example, the principle behind it is clear enough

By "elastic" I just mean that the employer and employee are allowed to make an agreement for the employee to work at some price, without a minimum wage law interfering.

Of course I'm not saying that the employers should decide how much to pay employees. I'm saying that if both the employers and employees would like to enter into an employment agreement, they should be allowed to, even if the agreed-upon wage isn't very high.

[Patchuli]

40. So you are for legal slavery basically. nt

[canetoad]

46. Such a scheme

cost our (Australia) last conservative government the 2008 election. It is wrong in so many ways and leads to a dismantling of unions to negotiate on behalf of the worker.

Thankfully, Kevin Rudd has shut this travesty of labour laws down and employment agreements are now obsolete. Think very carefully what a backward step you are recommending.

[juno jones]

22. Do you cook?

I do. 20 plus years. Cooks make 10-14 dollars an hour on average so this is a stupid anology. Find another.

If a restaurant can't pay minimum wage, it's either a failure or the owners have a parasitic lifestyle which I'm not required to enable.

[CNHander]

34. I didn't say the restaurant "can't pay minimum wage"

I'm saying that it would LIKE to pay $7/hr or less for another employee, not that ALL employees are making less than $7/hr.

Again, I'm just trying to communicate the principle behind this, which is clear enough.

[W_HAMILTON]

53. Oh, if only the real world were like an economics textbook.

In reality, the company would prefer to spend the least amount of money. If seven workers have been shown to handle the job to management's standards, they will not hire more workers, even at $4.00/hour. Why even spend $4.00 extra an hour when you think things are just fine with the people you have now?

[WI_DEM]

7. Boo!!

[devilgrrl]

9. You are so correct! Though, I'd take it even further and NOT PAY them anything!

:popcorn:

[CNHander]

13. No need to be sarcastic...... n/t

[Patchuli]

15. I think unloading the top-heavy

golden parachuters would do much more than pushing poor people further into poverty. Get real.

Oh and welcome to DU. :hi:

I hope you don't come with an anti-labor agenda...this isn't the place for it. I'm UNION and I'm PROUD.

[CNHander]

35. yup

"I think unloading the top-heavy golden parachuters would do much more than pushing poor people further into poverty."
Completely agree with you. As for unions, they sound like a good idea to me, though I don't really have much of an opinion aside from that.

[AngryOldDem]

16. I think you just defined slavery. n/t

[CNHander]

36. No minimum wage = slavery? don't think so. Less than 3% are on minimum wage anyway, thankfully. n/t

[KG]

18. bullshit.

[juno jones]

21. Fail.

Bastards don't pay enough now. Mostly they keep the hours low so rank and file can't get bennies.

[AngryOldDem]

23. Also...

I think they try to see just how few employees can do a job that was once done by many. If three people can do the job once done by six...cool! Then they wonder what would happen if three were reduced to two....

I was starting to see this at my old job just before I quit. People were being worked to death, which was just fine with management, because they were saving on costs. There is no sense of urgency to hire replacements.

Bastards.

[juno jones]

25. Oh yeah. The aforementioned job did that too.

I remember one of their long-timers bitching about how he hadn't gotten a raise in forever although the owners during that time had bought a luxury car and a couple of horses for their vanity farm. This was a guy that they were begging to stay because they couldn't get a highly trained baker to replace him.

They were basically having us try to fit 40 hours a week into 30 or less and every time we came up with a time-saving solution to problems we were promptly rewardeed with even more work to fill in any 'slack' time we might have uncovered.

I find it telling that they have not yet posted a want ad for the position that was vacated when I left (and they post all the time since they use 'em up and throw 'em out).

[rucky]

24. Support a child on minimum wage for a year, then get back to us.

[CNHander]

37. Better for two people to work for a lower wages than for one of them to get more

money, at the legal minimum wage, and for the other to remain unemployed, especially in these troubled times.

[Selatius]

49. Or, you could start a public works program and hire the unemployed worker.

FDR did this during the Great Depression. He didn't advocate repealing the minimum wage. By the way he did things, both workers won out in the end.

[rucky]

51. Not every houshold has two adults.

Policy should account for the most vulnerable in society, first.

[raccoon]

55. Art thou a troll? or just insensitive? nt

[fizzgig]

29. you obviously don't have to make ends meet earning minimum wage

if you want to cut my pay are you going to make up for my lost wages?

[Naturyl]

39. A guatanteed minimum income eliminates the need for a minimum wage

It would be a godsend to small business and create zillions of jobs instantly. Link in my sig.

[Skittles]

44. how about decreasing CEO pay?

ever think of that? Take a hike.

[Selatius]

48. You will be voted out of office if you tried that. That's what I think.

[HughBeaumont]

50. Wages PERIOD haven't seen an increase in real dollars since 1979.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/86

Contributing to that would be the fact that during the 28 Year Corporate Republican/Moderate Plague, the minimum wage didn't increase in real dollars for a 17 year stretch.

Ever lowering wages and an ever-rising cost of living that those low wages can't pay for are why Americans have the consumer debt problems they have. You need a new water heater because your old one leaks but your pocket can't afford a dehumidifier because your boss gives you a measly 2% raise or doesn't at all . . . so you have no choice but to shower in cold water . . . or charge. See how that works?

Why do you people HATE WORKERS????? The "Have Too Littles" aren't the cause of your problems, goddamnit.

[blindpig]

8. It's getting ridiculous

Talked to somebody the other day, she was offered two 4 hour shifts for the week, how do they expect people to live?

[timo]

10. what can be done?

I own a small tree farm, on weeks when we have no sales I have to cut back on the hours, I only have my self and 2 employees, I would love to keep them on for a full 40, but I just cant, I discussed it with them and we all came to the agreement when we have sales and times are good we can put in more hours, until a upturn, we are on a tight budget.

[comtec]

47. False analogy to what the freeper was saying

you have 2 temp employees.
You pay them whatever you can agree on.
that is not equivalent to a restaurant that probably serves middle of the road food and has a high volume.
the servers, btw, already have "elastic" wages. They go DOWN on good nights because of assumed tips.

Why is it that "elastic" always means LESS and N E V E R more?

[timo]

52. not temps

one has worked here for close to 15 years and the other for over 20, they both make a little over minimum wage, plus perks, I would love to be able to pay more and run 40 hour weeks, but current sales just don't allow for it.

[comtec]

54. *nods*

In that case it's a good thing to be wrong about (temp).
The freep's analogy would not work because 40 hours at less money, is still less money, than min+ at fewer hours.

I hope your business picks up. We need small businesses like your's. They are what really runs an economy, not these evil mega corp.s

[scarletwoman]

11. My weekly hours were reduced from 40 to 32 back in March. I see no sign that this will be changed

anytime soon.

Not only that, we were recently informed that anyone working less than 35 hours per week will have their health benefits taken away at the end of the current quarter -- even though the reduction in our work hours was mandated by the company.

The only way I have to forestall losing my benefits is by using up my accumulated PTO hours (Paid Time Off). So, every pay period, I have to fill out a form to add some of my PTO hours to my worked hours in order to stay above the benefits cut-off point.

The thing is, I really love my job -- and I work my ass off to do everything I can to stay on top of my work load and get as much done in 32 hours that I used to have 40 hours to accomplish.

Good times... :grr:

sw

[Patchuli]

19. That happened to my husband last November

and he ended up using vacation hours to round out his check. Then they laid him off (after 8 years and at age 58) in February. Thankfully, we had medical insurance from his retirement plan as a phone lineman for 30 years so we were OK there. He is working for another large retail chain store but his hours have been (to use our new poster's term "elastic.") Some weeks he gets 22 hours, some weeks 8. So it's been kind of crappy. I heartfeltedly (is that a word?!) hear you.

[scarletwoman]

31. Thanks. I'll be 60 in November, all I want is to be able to hang on until age 65

when I'll qualify for full Social Security benefits. :(

[juno jones]

20. In the last 2 years I have gone from 36

to 28-30 and now am currently working under 20.

In the second job (28-30) the hours were kept artificailly low for rank and file so no one besides salaried management could qualify for health bennies.

[rucky]

26. Funny, my hours have gone way up.

Probably because I'm salaried. :(

That won't show up on the report, though I'm sure it's happening to dilbert types everywhere.

[juno jones]

27. Yup.

I know a few salaried chefs who are hating life right now. They work 12-15 hour days, filling in for prep people and dishwahers that might have been hired in the past but no more.

My current chef is one of my best friends and an all-round good guy. I've worked with him at two different restaurants and have built up quite a loyalty. It breaks my heart to see him having to sacrifice a great relationship with his girlfriend to spend so many hours at the shop. I'd gladly work a few of those hours myself, as I need the money, but it doesn't work out that way nowadays, sadly.

[OhioChick]

28. Same here. n/t

[scarletwoman]

30. Same thing where I work -- we hourly workers had our hours cut while the salaried workers

are expected to work MORE hours for the same pay.

Long ago I decided I'd rather be an hourly wage slave than a salaried wage slave. At least I have a clear hours worked=hours paid kind of deal.

sw

[juno jones]

32. Good for you to see the salary vs hourly scam!

Just reflecting on that myself. I moved out of waitressing to cooking because tips are too 'elastic' (snark) but backed off from cheffing right about the time I was offered salary.

It sounds like a chef makes good money, but if you start divvying it all up by hours, the poor bastard makes a whole 50-75 cents an hour more than the line cooks for a lot more responsibility.

I want concrete terms: x hours + x responsibility = x money.

[saged52]

38. ironically my husband's hours have increased -

he is a union employee at a power plant and since they have a hiring freeze they are depending on current employees to carry the workload. he is normally asked for double shifts daily - occasionally forced on overtime.
they can't seem to find the $$ to hire any union employees but they continue to hire more company bosses - go figure.

[TexasObserver]

41. recommend

[tavalon]

42. My husband's hours got cut before Christmas

Me, on the other hand, I could work mucho overtime if I wanted.

[kentuck]

43. There's a new trend in the corporate world...

Rather than lay-off employees, they have a "go-home early" list. Employees can go home early, if they sign the list, without pay. Or if they wish, they can use their accumulated vacation time. Many employees are now getting somewhere between 30 and 35 hours per week. Some are getting even less. However, if they did not do this, the unemployment rate would be even higher.

[TheKentuckian]

45. My last job got heavy with the VTO...at first and then cut pay and benefits,

then we had two rounds of lay offs in two days. I bet they have cut further.