Brane Space: WSJ Editors Attack CA Dems Over 32 Hr. "French Workweek" - But Paper Is OK With Hrs. of Daily "Schmoozing"

Virtual world golf suggested for in-house employees in WSJ piece

One major reason many European nations are doing better than the U.S. in terms of employees returning to in-house work, is the ability to have a 32 hour work week. That is, 32 hours but being paid the same full wage (as if it were on the old 40 hours), such as our friends Frans and Jane in the Netherlands enjoy. As well as Martin and Gabbi in Prague. Well, the nattering nabobs at the WSJ are very upset by this, blasting the proposal for U.S. workers (April 16-17, 'California's French Workweek', p. A12). In their words:

"As labor economics goes, this is up there with paying people not to work and expecting more people to work."

Uh, not quite, mis amigos. It actually makes tons of sense especially for the millions of American workers ensconced at the three biggest enterprises, financial services, tech and energy. But of course, leave it to these Scrooges to toss in the most irrelevant examples to try to put the kibosh on the plan, e.g.

"Do Democrats really think Tesla workers can assemble as many cars in 32 hours as they do in in 40?... Got a medical emergency? Sorry 32 hours is gone and Friday is the new Saturday at our hospital!"

Obviously, missing the point - or not willing to see it - that the proposal is not intended to be a uniform, one size fits all standard. It is mainly intended for those jobs services into which it can be seamlessly incorporated. For example, Martin and Gabbi work at a financial services outfit and can easily do all they have to do in 32 hours, given both are highly focused and motivated employees. Ditto for Frans and Jane at a radiotherapy software corporation. Even the WSJ acknowledged in its editorial Microsoft has succeeded with fewer hours by having shorter meetings. Well, duh.

But the other factors which these hotshots fail to address is how in their Business (Exchange) pages e.g. April 9-10, p. C5, 'Socializing at Work Takes A New Course') ideas are a dime a dozen for employee schmoozing, e.g. in virtual environments. Oh and let's not forget another recent piece:

Your Office Is Open and the Liquor Is Flowing - WSJ

With this catchy image:

How does that help productivity and focus, say more than getting an added 8 hours off per week? Think those VR inhabiting employees or the ones gulping the Vino or Bourbon will be as productive as Frans and Jane? I doubt it. But it plays into the trope that U.S. workers can't be trusted with more time off, but can be trusted with booze flowing freely at the office and VR access.

Exchange columnist Chris Mims writes in his "socializing" piece:

"Part of the reason this kind of socializing works in virtual environments is that something called “spatial audio” is becoming standard in shared VR experiences. The idea is that sound in these environments works the way it does in real life: It’s in stereo, and people’s voices get louder or quieter depending on how close to them you are. In contrast to Zoom, where the spotlight must always be on one person, and side conversations are difficult, and Slack or Teams, in which everyone sees messages dropped in the main channel, this allows the kind of fluid formation and dissolution of conversational circles usually only possible in real life."

Fair enough, but there's still no assurance employees won't goof off - or take longer to do their work (even if they don't goof off) if offered booze, plus a VR environment to go with it.

The WSJ editors write at the end:

"Why do progressives think any idea they come up with has to be imposed by political coercion? You know the answer. Because they believe in their superior moral virtue, and they like to order other people around."

As usual, off by a mile and then some. Progressives, far from having any yen to "impose political coercion", simply believe the vast majority of workers are ready for more family time and the job not dictating or determining their waking hours. If anything the determination will not ultimately be made by progressives "ordering other people around" but by workers themselves deciding with their feet which way they will roll.

See Also: