Are People Really Working Longer Hours?

In a recent article in the 'Business Insider' titled "The 40-hour workweek is on its way out", the author detailed the findings of a poll of 9,700 workers in 9 countries regarding hours worked. Here are some of the key findings pertaining to the U.S.:

• 58% of U.S. managers -- the second worst of all countrys surveyed -- said they worked more than 40 hours a week; and, 40% of those said their hours have increased over the last 5 years.
• Higher percentages of parents complained of having to work longer hours than non-parents.
• One-third said its gotten harder to balance family and job over the last 5 years.
• 10% said flex-hours may have cost them things like promotions.
• Two-thirds said they would consider quitting if flex-hours were eliminated.

The problems with this study are many:

• The survey group is relatively small. Less than 1100 people per country. As such, we are then supposed to believe these findings can be generally applied to the more than 116 million businesses employing 157 million workers in this country. Also, the sample of opinions is even smaller when you consider that those being sampled are managers, supervisors, salaried non-supervisors, and hourly workers.
• The entire survey is emotionally based on what people "said" and not fact based on actual hours worked.
• The quality of management is not being assessed. Many managers don't utilize their time wisely by being paper shufflers and subsequently work longer hours because of it. All too often managers who work very long hours have a habit of picking up a piece of paper and, instead of acting on it, set it aside to mull it over again at a later time, repeating this process many times. 
• Are we really supposed to believe that parents are being forced to work longer hours than non-parent?

However, the biggest problem with the survey is that it flies in the face of the facts.  Workers in the U.S. have seen their hours steadily drop from a high of 36.9 hours/week or 1918 hour/year in 1951, as this graph from the St. Louis Federal Reserve's database clearly shows:

Support of a lower than 40 hour week also comes from the monthly employment report.  Referencing Table B, in March, the average work week was only 34.5 hours. Also understand, that 34.5 is an average. So, it is safe to say that some number of workers are working longer than 34.5 hours and others are working less.

Sadly, as flawed as this report is, it is being hyped all over news and business stations.  As such, the seed is being planted in a lot of people's heads, that they are being taken advantage of by their employers.  When, in fact, the average worker in America is working less than his or her counterpart of 65 years ago.

References:

The 40-hour workweek is on its way out: http://www.businessinsider.com/working-more-than-40-hours-a-week-2015-5

St. Louis Fed: Hours Worked Per Year: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG

USA Quick Facts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

March 2015 Employment Report: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Why the 40-Hour Work Week Would Destroy The Employer Mandate Of ObamaCare

Under ObamaCare, full-time work is defined as 30 hours or more per week. Thus, employers with more than 50 workers would be on the hook for either providing health insurance or paying a penalty whenever an employee consistently worked more than 30 hours a week.  Opponents of the 30-hour rule -- mostly Republicans and other small business groups -- claim that it will be responsible for causing employers to convert full-time jobs to part-time.  On the other hand, advocates of the rule -- Democrats and the Liberal media -- have shown statistics where the percentage of part-time work has not gone up but, actually, gone down.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the impact won't really be felt  until after 2016 as employers start to fully react to the impact of the law.  Of course, any logically thinking person would find it hard to believe that the 30-hour rule would actually increase full-time work.

Despite all this controversy, on January 8th, the House Republicans and 12 Democrats passed a bill that would redefine full-time work under ObamaCare as being 40 hours. Whether or not there will be the needed 60 votes in the Senate -- with at least 6 Democrats joining the Republicans -- is yet to be seen.  But, my guess is that no Senate Democrat will support the new rule and, as such, the bill will die in the Senate.  The reason is simple, the new full-time rule would literally destroy ObamaCare and its employer mandate.  This is because very few people today, actually even work and are paid for 40 hours.  In most states, employers are not mandated to provide paid lunch and work breaks in a typical 40-hour work week. According to the OECD (the Oranization of Economic Co-Operation and Development), the average employee in the United States worked 1799 hours annually in 2013; or, about 34.38 hours per week.  Even so, an employer only has to cut a 40-hour worker's paid time by as little as 31 minutes to avoid rounding up to 40 hours and, thus, having to abide by the mandate.

Lastly, if the bill does get through the Senate, Obama will veto it, and there is no way that there will be enough Democrat votes (12) to override the veto. 

References:

House approves ObamaCare bill despite veto threat: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/08/house-approves-obamacare-bill-despite-veto-threat/

Is Obamacare causing a surge in part-time work? - CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-obamacare-causing-a-surge-in-part-time-work/

CBO: Labor Market Effects of the Affordable Care Act: Updated Estimates: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf

OECD: Average annual hours actually worked per worker: http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS