# Is 40hr/week too much?



## nwink (Mar 20, 2012)

Let me clarify the title. In our country, many working people are used to working 40 hours per week...some more, maybe some less. However, in some countries, the general public work less hours and get more vacation. I don't think the Bible anywhere specifies how long we are to work each week except that we are to work 6 days and rest the seventh.

So my question is: do you feel Americans work too much? Or do you think they don't work very long or just the right length of time? Different people in places of the world and times in history have worked differently (some little, some all day), but what amount of work do you think is reasonable for the general working population?

I'm not asking a question about you personally, but about the general American population, as a society. Just curious.


----------



## Philip (Mar 20, 2012)

40 hours is, I think, reasonable in an industrial or post-industrial society. What is not reasonable is the expectation that many companies now have that the employee always be willing to work overtime and on weekends (including the Lord's Day).


----------



## JML (Mar 20, 2012)

Depends. I have often thought that if we were not so attached to the bells and whistles of the world that we could work less hours in order to spend more time with our families or for the kingdom of God. In many families that I know, both husband and wife work just to pay for their lifestyle, expensive mortgage, multiple cars, etc. (myself being guilty of some of this). If we really only paid for what we need, we could all probably work part time.


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 20, 2012)

Some Americans work too much. Some just enough. Some don't work at all, and milk the system. I think the 40 hour workweek is a reasonable standard to be expected by the employer and employee. Some occupations (police/fire/nursing for example) do 12 hour shifts and have a 48 hour week as a standard. The problem, that I believe exists, is an imbalance on what people think is worthy of higher or lesser pay. Why should a football player get 14 Million a year and a school bus driver 14 thousand? Why does a gov't worker get 80 thousand a year for teaching, and a Christian school teacher get 18 thousand? The world's priorities and gov't labor rate fixing have the whole labor market messed up, in the USA, In my humble opinion. 

Personally, I'd be happy to get a 40 hour work week. I'm currently contracted at 27.5 for this year. It was nice when I got 35. There's not much more I can trim out of our budget. I'll bet you a cookie that many pastors would like to only have to work 40 hours a week, and not get phone calls at 2AM.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 20, 2012)

The biblical pattern is work six rest one.

It might also include something of a sabbatical break after each seven years, a redirection of the routine.

We're blessed to live in a time with as much freedom and flexibility as there is, and a pattern centered around five work days, one free day, the sabbath, and several weeks of paid vacation expected.

We do too much complaining about the work God has given us to do, and spend too little time being grateful for and faithful with the lot he has appointed us to in this life, to the end of His Honor and His Glory.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Mar 20, 2012)

You also have to define what the work is. If it's accounting, odds are you won't be stretching more than 40 hours. If you're going into something like journalism (which I am), it could potentially be a 6-7 day/week job, ESPECIALLY if you're attached to a major news station and working overseas.


----------



## Andres (Mar 20, 2012)

40 hrs a week works for me, but that's most likely because it's what I'm used to. There are rare occasions where I'll have to cover for an ill co-worker and I'll work an extra 8 hr day, but again that is only about once every 4 months or so. There have also been times when my supervisor has asked me if I'd like to cover extra shifts for the OT, but I usually turn down the offer. As long as my income provides for my family, I don't need any extra income. I'd rather have the extra time to spend with my wife and son.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 20, 2012)

I wish I could find a way to get 40hrs of pay for 20hrs of work.


----------



## Edward (Mar 20, 2012)

Many of the countries with less than 40 hour weeks are in a downward spiral - with Greece as the prime example. With a Blackberry, only working 40 hours is a fond memory, but I'll take my current schedule over unemployment, of which I've had way too much. 

The year I worked a job that required a minimum of 6 - 10 hour days a week, with additional time encouraged, was a bit much.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 20, 2012)

One size does not fit all. That is the importance of a free market system.

40 hour weeks should not in any way be mandated.

It is between us and God how much we work. Volunteer work is just as valid. 

God alone knows our capacity. Some of us are very high energy, healthy, capable. Others are weaker, whether mental or physical, and need more breaks, more down time, more time to recuperate. I think of the various jobs of the mentally ill I am aware of, the supermarket bag boys and supervised janitors. They are not employed "full time." It is too taxing for them.

So I oppose any particular mandate. Let each man decide for himself how much he needs to earn, how much time his family demands, how much volunteer work he should do, etc. And work it out as best he sees fit.

My son currently works 60 hours a week. It is the best thing for him. Otherwise he watches movies all day. He is young and healthy. His life is best lived by working long hours right now, from my vantage point.


----------



## Andres (Mar 20, 2012)

Herald said:


> I'm not about to volunteer to work 6 days when I only work 5. That 6th day allows me to get all my yard work done.



Then you are working six days.


----------



## Curt (Mar 21, 2012)

What irks me are the employers who will give a person 31 hours, because at 32 hours benefits apply.


----------



## Somerset (Mar 21, 2012)

40 hours sounds about right. I do at least 60 - self employed in retail so work or starve. I will not work on Sunday (apart from turning the air con off and on in summer), I will not even thing about work. But as I only have Sunday away from work, I have more of a social life on the Lord's day than I would wish. But till I retire (a date that seems to recede faster than I age) I have no choice.


----------



## John Bunyan (Mar 21, 2012)

Edward said:


> Many of the countries with less than 40 hour weeks are in a downward spiral - with Greece as the prime example. With a Blackberry, only working 40 hours is a fond memory, but I'll take my current schedule over unemployment, of which I've had way too much.
> 
> The year I worked a job that required a minimum of 6 - 10 hour days a week, with additional time encouraged, was a bit much.



I agree, it seems to me that the only countries where people work less than 40h per week are some western places which are both going bankrupt and getting older.

I really don't understand why, in some places in europe, people protest to work less than 40h each week when, since everyone is getting older and having less children, there is already not enough money to sustain all the elderly men and women of the land.

We usually work (and by "we" I mean "people") 40 to 44h per week here - that's just my guess, however, since I don't have the statistics right now; the maximum permitted by law is a 44h/week.

I believe that, at most, people should live in the 8/8/8 system - 8h of sleep, 8h of work, 8h of leisure; but I would like to work less than that.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 21, 2012)

"What irks me are the employers who will give a person 31 hours, because at 32 hours benefits apply. "

That's human nature, and employers want to be good stewards of their money, too. Here you will find an employer employing 2-3 part time people instead of 1 or 2 full time - to avoid paying "required" benefits. Or, people getting hired for 39 hours a week.

Better for the government not to legislate these things, and let each employer/employee negotiate the terms of employment as best they see fit, in my opinion.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 21, 2012)

O'GodHowGreatThouArt said:


> If it's accounting, odds are you won't be stretching more than 40 hours.



I think, as April approaches rapidly, that many CPAs might find this laughable. Or talk to an accounting department at month-end/year-end. I have a friend who has worked 24 hours straight to finish up what needed to be done by the year-end date.


----------



## JoannaV (Mar 21, 2012)

In Europe maybe you have too many people who don't work enough, and in the US you have too many people who are slowly being killed by their employer. (This is a generalisation, the opposite is true too.) Some employers treat their employees well, others don't. Sometimes the system regulates itself, other times it seems the only way to protect people is to legislate.

Some companies don't care if they exhaust their employees and destroy their bodies because there is always someone else willing to work once the first employee is broken.

It is easier to work long hours when your employer considers your welfare, and acts in a reasonable manner towards you.

It is easier to not resent your employer when you are able to visit the dentist and mend your truck and attend an international funeral and clean up the hurricane debris from your yard.

Depraved man tends to make the worst of every situation. But ideally work would even out, that is, either people work long hours and people are hired to care for old people (eg) or people work shorter hours and care for their own old people.


----------



## baron (Mar 21, 2012)

Rich Koster said:


> I'll bet you a cookie that many pastors would like to only have to work 40 hours a week, and not get phone calls at 2AM.



I once had a pastor who worked 90+ hours a week on a church plant. I used to worry about his health and family. He explained it like this to me. He never met a farmer who worked only 40 hours a week. Plus the farmer is not guaranted a pay raise every year, he depends on God for his harvest. He said as the church starts growing and the people start using their gifts in the church, his work load would go down. It did go down but he said he still spent more than 40 hours a week. He said that a pastor should not work less than the people in the church. He said that I needed to add my 40 hours of work with my teaching Sunday School, plus my study time for that class, plus what ever else you do for the church. And pray for your family. 

I think our society has become obsessed with not working. Even all those good parents that have to attend their children sporting events. You ever go to little league games, a good part of the parents act like animals. I might be going off in the wrong direction here, sorry.


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 21, 2012)

Depends on the job. You really can't say that 40 hrs/week is a "one size fits all" answer. A musician puts in different time than a teacher, who in turn puts in different time than, say, an author (I happen to be all three  ).

I like to tell people that as a teacher I earn my summers off, because I'm doing twelve months of work in nine months' time. But as an author, it's virtually impossible to put in 8 hours of writing consistently a day (Try doing it some time and let me know how far you get with PRODUCTIVE writing at the end of that 8 hours). Musicians seem to get paid a lot for an hour or two hour concert, but it needs to be remembered that they (we) also spend hours on end practicing our pieces, and recording musicians at times can spend 12 to 16 hours a day in a recording studio. 

Not every job demands the same time. I work five days a week at a teacher, but I don't begrudge the college professor who works only three. His/her job has different requirements than mine, plain and simple. We work what is necessary for the job, and we should know up front what is expected of us and whether or not we can and should handle it.


----------



## jogri17 (Mar 21, 2012)

Not every job is of the same nature and not all require the same level of education or involve the same amount of risk. But I do think that the United States (my former country and all my family live there) need more paid maternity and paternity leave as opposed to more vacation time. The US lacks very much behind the rest of the world in this area. Children and families are more important than the bottom line and we ought to invest more in the family instead of trying to get the mother or father back to work ASAP.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 21, 2012)

"But I do think that the United States (my former country and all my family live there) need more paid maternity and paternity leave as opposed to more vacation time. The US lacks very much behind the rest of the world in this area."

I object to the government legislating this type of thing. I don't find a biblical warrant for it; or a pragmatic reason. If the government makes it more and more expensive to hire an employee, then less and less employees are hired. This does not help any family, ultimately. Also, the single or infertile are rather punished. Also, those who have children out of wedlock are encouraged.


----------



## Philip (Mar 21, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> I object to the government legislating this type of thing. I don't find a biblical warrant for it



I wasn't aware that the government was supposed to operate under the regulative principle. Regardless, I think we all agree that the government ought to legislate that employers provide one day per week off.


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 21, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> "But I do think that the United States (my former country and all my family live there) need more paid maternity and paternity leave as opposed to more vacation time. The US lacks very much behind the rest of the world in this area."
> 
> I object to the government legislating this type of thing. I don't find a biblical warrant for it; or a pragmatic reason. If the government makes it more and more expensive to hire an employee, then less and less employees are hired. This does not help any family, ultimately. Also, the single or infertile are rather punished. Also, those who have children out of wedlock are encouraged.


Agreed. Taking money from government is like taking money from Tony Soprano: sooner or later, he comes back, ready to pull on the strings attached to that "generous contribution."

A better solution would be NOT TO TAX SO MUCH!!!


----------



## Edward (Mar 21, 2012)

JoannaV said:


> Some companies don't care if they exhaust their employees and destroy their bodies because there is always someone else willing to work once the first employee is broken.



In most jobs, it isn't the labor that's going to wear you down and kill you, it's the mental attitude created that will shorten your life. I have a heavy workload in a job that can be stressful, but with great co-workers who help each other out, a great boss and honorable supervisors above him I don't dread going to work in the mornings, and while I need some time in the evenings to wind down, it's a great place to work.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 21, 2012)

An American businessman was at a pier in a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellow-fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. The Mexican replied only a little while. The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked the Mexican how he spent the rest of his time. The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life, senor.” 

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and, with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise.” 

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But senor, how long will this all take?” 

To which the American replied, “15-20 years.” 

“But what then, senor?” asked the Mexican. 

The American laughed, and said, “That’s the best part! When the time is right, you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public. You ll become very rich, you would make millions!” 

“Millions, senor?” replied the Mexican. “Then what?” 

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 22, 2012)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > I object to the government legislating this type of thing. I don't find a biblical warrant for it
> ...



Well, there is sphere sovereignty. I don't think that forcing maternity or paternity leaves is a legitimate part of government. The case law we see about employment doesn't support it.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> Well, there is sphere sovereignty. I don't think that forcing maternity or paternity leaves is a legitimate part of government.



Why not? I don't find sphere sovereignty as a concept in Scripture. If you hold to it as a concept in political theory, that is fine, but realize that those who formulated it (Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, etc) conceived of government as having exactly the role of ensuring that the mediating institutions of civil society did their duty and acted in a manner in accordance with Christian principles.


----------



## tangleword (Mar 22, 2012)

I think that 40 hours a week is a good standard. Just read an article: Why We Have to Go Back to a 40-Hour Work Week to Keep Our Sanity | Visions | AlterNet
about how the 40 hour week was something that employers liked because they discovered that it increased productivity. I do think that working more than 40 hours a week tends to have diminishing returns in productivity.


----------



## jwithnell (Mar 22, 2012)

I'm surprised no other moms have popped in with: "only 40 hours, I wish!" 

Switching instantly from the professional world to being a mother of 3 (now 5) children was difficult in part because I can never look forward to a time with no demands being made of me. And that was switching from a job where I "donated" many hours and could be called out any time for 21-days of fire duty. 

Likely, my experience as a mom is more like what people experienced for centuries before things like the Fair Labor Standards Acts, etc., were invented. You worked in whatever your profession, went to sleep, and started over. Thank God for the Sabbath!


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 22, 2012)

"I don't find sphere sovereignty as a concept in Scripture."

Well then, we don't much have a common ground for debate. Obviously, I think it is there.

But I can't articulate it better than Dooyeweerd, so, I'll leave it at that. 

I'll offer the more secular caveat: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." I don't want any government to have so much power that it dictates my basic terms of employment. I think grown men should work that out themselves, to their mutual satisfaction. 

Unless theft, or fraud, or some such is involved - then a crime has been committed, and the employer or employee should have the recourse of law.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> I think grown men should work that out themselves, to their mutual satisfaction.



That's the problem, isn't it? Grown men have to take what they can get, not what is satisfactory. I don't want to give corporations absolute power over terms of employment (which is what they have, unless a particular employee is somehow so valuable that they are able to dictate their own terms of employment).

Remember that Kuyper and Dooyeweerd were not libertarians and that their notion of sphere sovereignty does allow the state to intervene and ensure that mediating institutions of civil society (like businesses) are doing their job properly.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 22, 2012)

"Grown men have to take what they can get, not what is satisfactory."

I disagree, in a free society we can bargain and also start our own businesses, work as independent contractors, take two jobs if we like, quit one, move, etc.

Of course if the society is not free then the employee is at a disadvantage.

I don't mean to give the impression that I am a Libertarian. I am not.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> I disagree, in a free society we can bargain and also start our own businesses, work as independent contractors, take two jobs if we like, quit one, move, etc.



Assuming, naturally, that one has the skills/education/capital to do so. The individual employee is always at a disadvantage at the bargaining table unless his particular skills are such that a) the employer cannot do without them b) he is the only (or best) available option. Consider today's economy where many jobs are capable of being offshored. In this kind of economy, the individual worker is always expendable unless they can show that their personal services are indispensible.


----------



## thbslawson (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't think 40 hours is unreasonable, but at the same time it may not always be necessary. Some companies have moved to shorter work weeks, but require the same amount of work to be done. Netflix is one major corporation that does this I believe. What they've found is that productivity actually increases, and that employees are happier because they get more time at home.

Also, we need to keep in mind, that when the Bible talks about "work" it's not necessarily referring to a 9 to 5 career job where one clocks in and out. Cutting the grass, fixing leaky faucets at the house, washing the car, cleaning the house, etc. are all forms of work. Based on some studies I've read, and based on what some companies are starting to do, I actually think it might be better to shorten the work week and pay people for what they accomplish rather than how long they're physically present in one place, and give them more time with their families. Give them an extra day or half day per week to work around the house, plant a garden or wash the car with the kiddos, or do some other form of "work" 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 22, 2012)

"Assuming, naturally, that one has the skills/education/capital to do so."

So true, and that has so many ramifications. All positive. For instance, it is a giant incentive for us to maximize our skills and pursue our education; to capitalize ourselves. 

We are rewarded, for example, for delaying gratification. My son lived on peanuts with his parents (!) and studied and worked very hard, about 500 hours for free doing pretty gross stuff, to get his EMT certification. Why? He was sick of working at, literally, McDonalds. Low pay, uninspiring work, ill treatment from customers and management, no future. Because those with skills, education, and capital are usually rewarded, he worked hard to improve his skills and education. We supplied, by God's grace, as called as we are as parents, most of the capital.

As I home school our children we supply oceans of educational capital, equipping our children to earn the best living they can as they become adults. 

Some "skills" are so very valuable, and require no degree. When I have been in a position to hire, it was very difficult to find people who were PUNCTUAL; HARD WORKING; POLITE; DEPENDABLE; and above all, HONEST. Such an employee is gold. So we are incentivized to increase these graces in ourselves as well. 

Further, as parents, as church bodies, and as philanthropists, we are incentivized to educate our wards, capitalize them as appropriate, and develop their aptitudes into useful skills. This is also very commendable behavior.

Finally, we are called to charity towards those who, through no sinfulness of their own, can't be very productive, for example the mentally challenged. Again, very positive.


----------



## Philip (Mar 23, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> So true, and that has so many ramifications. All positive. For instance, it is a giant incentive for us to maximize our skills and pursue our education; to capitalize ourselves.



Yes it does. What's sad, though, is the fact that many don't know this because many don't have the opportunity for an education that will teach them a) why doing this is valuable b) how to actually do this. Education that teaches these kinds of skills is primarily the domain of the relatively well-off in today's society.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 23, 2012)

"Education that teaches these kinds of skills is primarily the domain of the relatively well-off in today's society. "

True, but even the poorest of parent(s) can provide for their children to be employable and even attain wealth. It does require effort, discipline, and sacrifice on the parent(s)' part. But we are an upwardly mobile society. In the absence of a decent or able parent(s), the extended family and the church should stand willing to stand in the role.

My church, for example, has sent two children to Christian school that I know of. One had non-Christian parents but attended our church himself. The other has a lovely Christian mother but not enough funds.


----------



## Philip (Mar 23, 2012)

Miss Marple said:


> True, but even the poorest of parent(s) can provide for their children to be employable and even attain wealth.



If they themselves are educated and knowledgeable about these kinds of things, maybe. Many people in our society simply don't have the skills, the resources, or the imagination to make the system work for them.


----------



## Gloria (Mar 23, 2012)

nwink said:


> Let me clarify the title. In our country, many working people are used to working 40 hours per week...some more, maybe some less. However, in some countries, the general public work less hours and get more vacation. I don't think the Bible anywhere specifies how long we are to work each week except that we are to work 6 days and rest the seventh.
> 
> So my question is: do you feel Americans work too much? Or do you think they don't work very long or just the right length of time? Different people in places of the world and times in history have worked differently (some little, some all day), but what amount of work do you think is reasonable for the general working population?
> 
> I'm not asking a question about you personally, but about the general American population, as a society. Just curious.



Yes. I think more places should shorten the number of hours per day, days per week or other flex time options. A good bit of my work can actually be done from home. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Edited to add:

I'm truly an advocate of working until tasks are completed. In my position, sometimes my work is complete in 4 hours. Other times, it's really necessary for me to be around 12-14 hours. In the instances where I can complete my work in 4 hours, I'd REALLY like to go home. lol


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 23, 2012)

"If they themselves are educated and knowledgeable about these kinds of things, maybe. Many people in our society simply don't have the skills, the resources, or the imagination to make the system work for them. "

It seems we are in agreement about the problem, but not about the solution.

I don't think the solution to parents who are so bad that they can't or won't teach such skills as hard work, punctuality, honesty, and a willingness to learn will be helped by labor laws requiring a minimum wage or a 40 hour week or whatever. The problems that needs to be addressed at this point is almost certainly spiritual, unless there is a mental damage of some sort, and the state can't do much, there. To require taxpayers to support such folks as they continue their indolence, or to require employers to pay them high wages and give them long breaks and etc., ultimately harms us all.

I like to see individual Christians and churches offering opportunity and a hand up to those who'd like to improve their lot. Education, certainly, but also jobs and character training and encouragement for innovation and entrepreneurship. Support for the hard times. It is, within parameters, a diaconal role. It seems to me the best thing to do for those who want to improve themselves, rather than forcing employers to sweep up all the flotsam and jetsam, which includes a lot of people who don't have an employable attitude.

The son I mentioned previously, who recently got his EMT certificate and so greatly improved his prospects, was genuinely helped by folks in the church who hired him for landscaping and babysitting and such. It was much appreciated and bore good fruit.


----------



## Organgrinder (Mar 28, 2012)

I regret not working more than 40 hrs. a week when I was younger and had the stamina.

Looking back there was not much I would have missed working more than 40. We were living in gov't housing, I was traveling hours on public transit and had nothing to do but watch TV and do laundry when I got home. Yes, those were the bad ol' days and I"m glad they're gone. 

I really felt okay back when I decided to work two jobs. I felt like I was contributing more to the family by being more responsible. Besides we had money to do stuff and I had more self respect.

So, I would say that for some people working more than 40 hrs is a good thing. Its even better if you have a goal like getting out of debt or to by a house.


----------



## darrellmaurina (Apr 3, 2012)

Baron is right.

Not only conservative Reformed Christians but broad evangelicals and even "freethinkers" such as Benjamin Franklin from just a few generations ago would likely have rebuked someone who worked only 40 hours for being slothful.

It's hard for me to come up with an example of a small business owner or a farmer today who works only 40 hours, and before the industrial revolution that simply would have been impossible. Perhaps the focus should be on figuring out how to obey God's command to work six days, and be grateful that we can do something to work for the church in our "off time" rather than the 60, 80 or 100-hour weeks that our forefathers had to work?


----------

