SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim Calls for Three-Day Workweek to Improve Quality of Life
Mexican billionaire tycoon, Carlos Slim, has called for the introduction of a three-day working week, offset by longer hours and a later retirement, as a way to improve people's quality of life and create a more productive labour force.
Slim made the comments when speaking to a business conference in Paraguay, suggesting that the workforce could be spread over a full week, with employees working up to 10 or 11 hours a day.
"With three work days a week, we would have more time to relax; for quality of life," the Financial Times reports Slim saying. (paywalled)
The business conference, Growing Together - States and Enterprises, was held in Asuncion and was attended by business and political leaders from across Latin America.
"Having four days [off] would be very important to generate new entertainment activities and other ways of being occupied," Slim said. He said current retirement ages come from a time of lower life expectancies, and should rise to 70 or 75.
Anybody want a 75 year old hauling away his trash?
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 23 2014, @06:44PM
yes, but these schemes are only approved when they benefit the employer, not the employee. This method is often used to stop giving "personal" days, by trading a week day that would otherwise be a personal day.
Nothing is EVER done for the employees benefit.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Wednesday July 23 2014, @07:26PM
Well, that might be a bit extreme. "Executives are employees, too, my friend."
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:07PM
not so long as they are paid on a different scale than the lowest employee in the company.
Stock options do not exists for the vast majority of employees, and yet, they make up a significant fraction of "executive" pay.
It is a fact of life , that is what companies do. They legally have to make money, and the more effect you can have on that process, the more money you can earn for yourself...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23 2014, @08:35PM
Stock options[...]make up a significant fraction of "executive" pay
Those are "capital gains", which are taxed at a lower rate than wages/salary.
...and there are no taxes until they are sold.
If you are a wage earner, there is no way you can win this game.
The deck is stacked.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 23 2014, @11:18PM
By that definition, even a journeyman machine operator is not an employee simply because he's on a different pay scale than a flunky broom pusher.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday July 24 2014, @02:02AM
Can we PLEASE stop the "they legally have to be douchebags" meme that has been told as truth by extreme factions of certain parties, because its bullshit, mmkay? If it were true then any major shareholder could just scream at any company that hasn't moved to the cheapest shithole on the planet because "you aren't maximizing shareholder value, herpa derp". This of course isn't even counting the majority of businesses which are private and can exist to be or do anything the owners want, but even the public businesses only have to show they are doing what THEY, the board, consider is best for the company.
As for TFA? I'll get screams of racism but fuck it, none of this shit is gonna matter as long as corps can hire illegals by the truckload and pass the costs on to the taxpayer when they get hurt or sick. In my area you go into the ER and its NOTHING but illegals, most of whom have gotten hurt or worked until they get sick on job sites only to be kicked out at the ER for the next warm body. In less than 20 years construction as a career has been completely wiped out by an endless flood of easily abused illegals and any company that gets caught gets a slap on the wrist that is MUCH less than what they save by hiring illegals.
So scream all you want but Carlos can offer 10 hour weeks and ice cream for all but as long as you can buy illegals like cattle for pennies on the dollar it ain't gonna happen here. What you WILL get is increased crime, poverty, diseases from lack of proper nutrition and being packed like sardines into ghettos, because they can get Paco for a pittance compared what they have to pay Peter.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @02:56AM
yeah, capitalism, aint it grand?
what do you propose instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 24 2014, @04:29AM
> none of this shit is gonna matter as long as corps can hire illegals by the
> truckload and pass the costs on to the taxpayer when they get hurt or sick.
Just like legalization is the fix for the overwhelming majority of problems associated with drugs, legalization of migrant workers is the fix for that. Open borders means we can start to properly tax all of those workers in order to pay for the state resources they use.
Legalize them, don't criticize them.
Legalize them, yeah, yeah, and I will advertise them!
Keep on telling you, legalize them.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 23 2014, @10:34PM
I wonder if this has nothing to do with benefiting the employer or the employee, but rather trying to help the unemployed.
I suspect it is to get more people working. True, Mexican unemployment rate is pretty low, 4.8% in 2014, but it doesn't take into account the number that just don't work at all and aren't looking, because there is nothing to do.
In Mexico, the employment rate is defined as the percent of the economically active population are counted as employed or unemployed but seeking employment, but the labor force (actual number of people available for work) only reaches 58.45 percent of the population. In the US the labor force is typically around 76%, EU around 72% of population. Clearly, there is a significant number that have just given up finding work. (Allowing for larger family sizes, etc)
Splitting the jobs up among many workers makes many more (lower paying jobs), but might actually bring more people into the work force.
Just my guess.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.