As part of his Labor Day message to workers in the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday re-upped his call for the establishment of a 20% cut to the workweek with no loss in pay—an idea he said is “not radical” given the enormous productivity gains over recent decades that have resulted in massive profits for corporations but scraps for employees and the working class.
“It’s time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay,” Sanders wrote in a Guardian op-ed as he cited a 480% increase in worker productivity since the 40-hour workweek was first established in 1940.
“It’s time,” he continued, “that working families were able to take advantage of the increased productivity that new technologies provide so that they can enjoy more leisure time, family time, educational and cultural opportunities—and less stress.”
Why does it feel like it’s only ever Bernie Sanders that is pushing for life improvements.
Cause he’s one of the few that actually give a shit. Its why the DNC did everything in their power to scuttle his primary run. Can’t have a president that actually wants to help the common American cause then the corporate overlords might lose their stranglehold on them.
If we got rid of the Republican party, he might be able to run as an independent.
TL;DR: Corruption and capitalism
Any kind of socialism (even relatively-speaking weak social democrats like Bernie) is severely underrepresented in US politics due to the influence of private money/capital in the government and in elections. The two party system/first past the post voting doesn’t help matters either.
The people with money actively want to supress socialism by any means necessary. Look at Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare if you want an example in US history that still affects us today.
Also Reagan with deregulation and Bill Clinton with “triangulation” (effectively becoming more economically right wing by finding the middle ground between right and left, while the right is constantly pushing right. See: the Ratchet Effect)
Bernie is one of the extremely few principled politicians who doesn’t take corporate money, but he also lacks power as he is one person.
Any kind of socialism (even relatively-speaking weak social democrats like Bernie)
This move is not socialism and calling it socialism makes it harder to pass in America.
If you’re in a gun fight, don’t start tossing your opponent ammunition.
Thank you
We’ve already proven that idiots don’t understand the words they parrot, so attaching it to one they hate is just stupid.
Same thing with shit like vaccines and autism. Don’t even put the two in the same sentence. It’s not even worth legitimizing the bullshit the handlers put out there
Calling them idiots while searching for their support does wonders however
They’ll still vote straight R down the ballot regardless. I’ll take payment up front before I start kissing their asses, thanks.
Oh I’m sure that’s what keeps them from taking a pro-american stance, the name calling
At some point you have to play the game, and everyone to the left of Trump sucks ass at meaningfully doing so with the notable exceptions of Obama almost 20 years ago.
If Dems don’t fix their messaging we aren’t going to win any of this shit.
Seriously. There’s a serious messaging problem when the Nazis/white power groups push for social equity programs (for whites only, of course) and get more traction with poor whites than the Dems who give lip-service to equity for all while doing jack shit to deliver. EDIT: My friend’s job is to monitor white power groups in person and online. They share some crazy ass shit with me. During the Trump election, the white power folks were straight up (extremely racist) socialists – they sounded like Star Trek Mirror Universe Bernie Sanders, and it was wild to hear Trump’s populist talking points sometimes mirror what the white power socialists were saying.
Why does it feel like it’s only ever Bernie Sanders that is pushing to bring the US inline with Europe?
As someone from Europe I would absolutely love a 32 hour work week without any pay cut. In my previous company I bargained myself a 32 hour work week with a pay cut and it was excellent, it felt like I had so much free time to do other things.
Because he’s popular, so he gets headlines
Because 95% of them are on the corporate dime.
Because he doesn’t have to accomplish anything. Does he have a plan for this? Has he done any due diligence on transition? Has he studied the impact on small business vs large business? It’s easy to tell people what they want to hear. It’s harder to implement. Studies have shown it working in other countries, but that’s nowhere near enough to just make it happen in the US.
Why the downvotes, its FUD but asked with good intent. If hes wrong, explain or link to someone.Whatever the “biden cult” is, i dont want to know
It’s ok, the more I get downvoted without anyone challenging a point the more it shows I’m not wrong. If Bernie Sanders releases a plan for this today I want to read it. Until then it just feels like a circle jerk of complaining and spreading the same apathy that lead to 2016, which no same person wants.
I seem to recall that he wasn’t just a criticizer but that he actually had plans for change. I didn’t think he’d win, though, so I voted for Warren who seemed less liberal but a clear and demonstrated protector of normie debtors from the abuses of the financial sector.
His economic plan required larger domestic growth than had ever happened, even more so than Marco Rubio’s plan that was ridiculed by the Left. His rationale for why we’d have the growth was not backed up by any experts, and read like some fantasy novel where consequences and hardships don’t exist. Many of his plans ignored any strategy of likelihood of getting passed, and several were prerequisites of each other meaning if the first failed the rest would come crumbling down like a house of cards.
He also had major holes where he took hard line stances without any backup plan. His healthcare ideas boiled down to universal care or bust, where failure would have been catastrophic. To think Republicans give a shit if the system collapses. They’d do it just to win elections.
I didn’t dislike his ideas, I disliked his lack of strategy and planning. Bernie is a very good person, but not a very good politician. Strategy is super important, and he doesn’t strike me as someone able to make difficult decisions and would stick to his ideals which could very well have catastrophic consequences.
All that said, If he won the primary I would have voted for him in the general without question.
People disagreeing with you doesn’t mean you’re right. If anything, it tends to mean the opposite. Also, how are you getting downvoted? This website doesn’t appear to have a downvote button.
This website doesn’t appear to have a downvote button.
It depends on how the administrator set up their instance. I have an account on lemmy.one which doesn’t allow downvotes. I also have an account where I’m posting this that does. Both connect to the same content.
“Without anyone challenging a point” is the key part. If I’m wrong, no one has out any effort into showing it.
Your Instance may not support downvoting. Or the client you are using. Beehaw didn’t when I used it.
That’s simply not possible, I need my employees to be working more hours, not less. Last year I could barely afford my sailing trip to Aruba. If such a law passes I’m going to have to fire some people for sure or raise rents on my tenants.
I know this is sarcastic but I can’t help read it in my literal bosses voice, who didn’t give us Christmas bonuses but did fix the sail on his yacht immediately after a storm for like £20k or some bs
Yeah even knowing full well it was sarcasm couldn’t help but hear it in the voice of my boss, who is so delusional they constantly talk about rolling back my department, the only one that actually makes money, cause our wages are too expensive (spoilers, they aren’t, 1/10th of our staff is on food stamps but our boss can afford a new luxury car.)
That sounds like something that should be advertised, possibly permanently on the side of said car.
Sorry to hear that, what they put foodstamp people through is horrific
Capitalism at work, record profits means checks notes. … more people than ever on welfare and increasingly impoverished working class… Huh
The less you pay your employees, the more money you get to keep.
Same. I was searching for that down vote button with my finger tbh.
…Where is it, anyway?
You’ve already sacrificed so much, we can’t possibly ask you to sacrifice anymore. God, we’ve been so selfish talking about barely being able to afford rent or food to eat, when really we should’ve been thinking about how you felt about the whole thing. I’m so sorry we’ve inconvenienced you in any way. You know, go ahead and skip paying me for a bit and take that submarine trip on OceanGate you’ve always wanted to do, everyone has been talking so much about it lately.
username checks out
Its funny how schizophrenic your posts are from thread to thread.
Thank you
Or, y’know, you could just skip the sailing trip to Aruba.
This goes against what Republicans want. They’re literally removing child labor laws so kids can get into the work force while they’re in middle school. Start a kid working at 12 years old and they can get about 50 years of labor out of them. Chances are that kid will be working 60-70 years and won’t be able to retire.
I got a job at 16 and worked part time through college and have been full time since. 1/3 of my adult life (6 years) was doing 60 hour weeks. I’m by no means the most responsible with my finances but I don’t buy tons of frivolous stuff. Haven’t been on a real vacation since 2014. Haven’t taken off unless I’ve gotten sick (I caught COVID 3 times).
I don’t expect to be able to retire. I expect to starve to death when I can no longer work.
And even like that you are better off than 95% of the planet
What is this comment even supposed to prove??
We’re talking about how there’s a major gap in the finances of corporate execs, meanwhile the people that they make their money off the backs of are going to not have enough money themselves for life in general.
And your only argument is “people elsewhere have it worse.” That’s a non-argument. It may be true but contributes nothing meaningful to the conversation so please find a reason that this comment or having a job and not being able to afford life when/if they have to stop working is a good thing like you seem to be implying
deleted by creator
For like 10 years my work didn’t want to pay as many pharmacist hours so offered 30 hour full time roles for the slower stores. I rode that wave as long as I could. It’s a really stressful job, but at 30 hours it felt like I had a rough job. At 40+ hours it feels like I have a rough life. I’m fully in support of this 32 hour workweek. Those extra few hours won back can be magical for physical health, mental health, hobbies. I even got an extra degree in computer science.
I tell people time and time again that work starts at 9 and end at 3pm, everything after is shuffling paper and killing time.
Well, jobs are different. It’s just that sometimes you get too tired to do anything effectively an hour or two before your work technically ends.
But what about the poor billionaires?
“I’ve got one hobby space program yes, but what about second hobby space program?”
“What about my yachts? I need to see them slaving their lives away for my holiday!!!”
This would DOUBLE my effective free time. It would improve my life so much.
I’m hoping the push for a 32 hour week gains enough traction that we could actually feasibly negotiate a 9-day sprint (2 week period) as the “middle ground”, at least until the next wave of negotiations pushes further.
Gimme every other monday off, that way I’m always working toward either a long weekend or an early weekend
I just negotiated one Monday a month off and it’s nice. Two would be better, of course. Three day weekends should be standard. It’s like that meme said: “One day for chores/errands, one to day to socialize, one day to stay in bed all day like you’ve got some Victorian wasting sickness.”
Dude should have run on this vs the the 15 dollar minimum wage.
This would have garnered him more support. I would have door knocked for the old bastard.
whynotboth_es.jpg
Wouldn’t a 32 hour work week, keeping the same wage, sort of raise the minimum wage by default? I work full time, work less hours, and keep the same wage?
Kind of, except you might still need to work multiple jobs because one doesn’t pay enough to keep you alive
Sure, yes, but the minimum wage should probably also still increase more than the average, since it is still the lowest-paid who are getting screwed hardest of all
This is why we need unions.
The autoworkers union the article refers to as an example is seeking a 46% pay rise to coincide with the transition to 32 hours.
Dems would’ve torpedoed him no matter what he pushed for issues.
Do you all have the Congress app installed on your phone?
Can you name your House of Representative member?
Can you name your Senators?
This will go nowhere the same way that smart gun control went nowhere, despite the vast majority of the citizenship wanting it, despite even after a room full of elementary school kids were killed. Lobbying stops what the vast majority of the citizenry want.
The only way to affect change is to lobby Congress, that’s what the corporations do. Corporations lobby Congress, so you have to as well.
You need to get involved, you have to let your Representative and your Senators know that you want a four-day work week. You should even throw some donation money their way for their next election cycle.
Just commenting about it on an Internet forum isn’t enough. Just waiting for somebody else to do the work isn’t enough.
You are the citizen.
only way to affect change is to lobby
Don’t want to be pedantic, but not American and don’t really have much else to add here.
This is one of the few times when the correct word is “effect”, not “affect”. “Affect (v.)” means to alter, or have an impact on. “Effect (v.)” means to produce, and to create an effect (n.) of.
deleted by creator
This is one of the few times when the correct word is “effect”, not “affect”. “Affect (v.)” means to alter, or have an impact on. “Effect (v.)” means to produce, and to create an effect (n.) of.
Change is to alter something, not to create/produce something.
I wrote it as wanting to affect how Congress does things, to change what Congress does, to have an impact on Congress, which is what lobbying does.
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
Change is to alter something, not to create/produce something.
It’s a transitive verb. “Affect change” places “change” as the object. You’re not saying you’re altering the political situation or you’re altering Congress; You’re saying the change is already happening, and you’re merely slightly altering its direction. “Effect change” means “Make a change”, which is what you’re trying to say. “Affect change” means “change the change”, which is probably nonsensical in most cases you’d use it.
Also, “effect change” specifically is a standard idiom. “Effect change” shows up in the English language around 8X more commonly than “affect change” between 1800 and 2000, because “affect change” is a semantically incorrect misspelling of “effect change”. [1] “Effect a change” is also either explicitly defined in or given as an example usage in many major dictionaries, while the same isn’t true of “affect change”, because, again “affect change” is a generally incorrect usage that doesn’t actually make sense or mean anything outside of potentially very specific scenarios that don’t apply here. [2]
2: Defined in Collins. Used in example sentences by: Cambridge, Webster, American Heritage
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
I mean. Feel free to, I guess?
You’re saying the change is already happening
If I was saying that the change already happened I would have said ‘affectED’ past tense, which I did not.
I’m advocating for something to cause change, I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
If I was saying that the change already happened I would have said ‘affectED’ past tense, which I did not.
I’m advocating for something to cause change, I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.
Oh my god. You’re using “change” as an object noun after a transitive verb which itself has no connotation or denotation of creation or causation. That implicitly means you’re saying that the thing it’s referring to must already exist.
I’m advocating for something to cause change,
Yes! That is what “effect” means.
I’m not saying that change is already in the middle of happening or has happened.
Yes you are! “Affect (v.)” already means “change (v.)”. “Affect (v.) change (n.)” means “change (v.) the change (n.)”. That implies that the “change (n.)” must already exist.
It’s like if I said “This salt will really affect my spaghetti”. That implicitly says/presumes that “my spaghetti” already exists, or else it wouldn’t be able to be affected.
I stand by my usage of the word affect, over effect.
🙄
FFS, I explained the grammatical reasoning, and linked to historical usage data, and linked to four different dictionaries to back that up.
You know what, fuck it. I only mentioned “effect” vs. “affect” because I thought that was somewhat interesting and more obscure rather than annoying to point out, but if you’re going to just be obtuse about it I may as well have some fun and point out the various other grammatical and semantic mistakes too…
“The Congress app” should not have a definite article because the app you linked to is, per the app ID, developer info, and first line of its description, unofficial and unaffiliated with the U.S. Congress. “Representative” should be plural, though that’s probably just a typo. The second “despite” should have a conjunction such as “and” immediately before it. “Want” should be conjugated as “wants” after “citizenry”, because the noun it applies to in this case is the singular “majority”. “Affect” should be “effect”, because “affect change” isn’t a thing and is actually nonsense. The clause right after that, beginning with “that’s what the corporations”, is a run-on sentence and should probably be fixed with a conjunction denoting causality or reasoning. The clause after “involved” is also a run-on sentence, and should probably either be its own declarative statement or be semicolon-delimited. The third “to” on the second sentence of your next reply needs a listing conjunction right before it. And in your latest reply, the clause after “cause change” is also a run-on sentence and should probably be delimited by either a full stop or a semicolon instead of a comma.
Now I suppose I’ll wait for you to explain why you “stand by” these other plainly incorrect (and, frankly, inconsequential) errors as well.
It’s funny how you started out pretending to champion political change, and to be against frivolously “commenting about it on an Internet forum”. … I should know better.
You know what, fuck it. I only mentioned “effect” vs. “affect” because I thought that was somewhat interesting and more obscure rather than annoying to point out, but if you’re going to just be obtuse about it
I’m not being obtuse, I’m just disagreeing with your interpretation of the words. I feel you’re ignoring the temporal aspect of when each word should be used, per how I learned to use those words in school.
Honestly not trying to upset you, you’re just telling me something different that I’ve learned my whole life about. And you spewing out ChatGPT levels of text doesn’t convince me, it just makes me feel like you’re trying to obscure and be intellectually dishonest about the conversation.
I may as well have some fun and point out the various other grammatical and semantic mistakes too…
Honestly, why?
Are you so offended with someone who would disagree with you that you have to go to such extreme measures in a public forum in an attempt to shame them?
Would you act this way with somebody at a party who disagreed with you on something?
Does your life have so little meaning to it that this is the only way you could gain satisfaction out of it?
It’s funny how you started out pretending to champion political change, and to be against frivolously “commenting about it on an Internet forum”. … I should know better.
Honestly not meaning this as a snarky comeback, but, ‘touch grass’, sincerely. It’s just voice-to-text dictation of opinions, not written prose in the style of the great writers.
And yes, I still stand by how I’m using the word affect, versus effect. Oh wait, sorry: I still stand by how I used the word affect, versus effect.
Bruh. I offered a polite correction on an ultimately inconsequential grammatical error you made. You’re the one who doubled down on the error, and then continued doubling down while ignoring everything I said except for specific sentences which you clearly didn’t understand.
“Spewing out ChatGPT levels of text”? WTF is that even supposed to mean? I just quickly explained the grammar at first. Then, when you didn’t get that, I elaborated on the reasoning for it, and linked to like, five different independent sources, instead of just making blanket assertions. You didn’t understand, so I explained— Jeez, but that’s the real issue, isn’t it? You don’t seem to like that very much.
This is so stupid. Does it even matter? Do you do anything other than moralize down at Internet strangers about petty and incorrect semantics while repeating yourself?
Working within the system will never give us what we need. The system is made for them. All we get are concessions that then get taken away when we’re no longer a threat. No company, no matter how much popular support, is ever going to allow this. You’d have far bigger chances of making far bigger changes if you joined an org. Any org.
Louis Rossman on YouTube hired a lobbying firm to help farmers to be able to repair their own tractors and won, so there’s proof right there it can be done.
If there’s grassroots lobbying of politicians by regular people, change can happen.
That’s what corpos are really afraid of, being out lobbied.
As I said, the things you don’t get by fighting are purely concessions so you shut up. When you do shut up, they get taken away. Every single fundamental working right we have was fought for with blood, not votes.
What corpos are really afraid of is us organizing. They have always been. That’s all we have to do. Advocating for people to send emails (since none of them are going to have the money to hire lobbying firms) will just feed them back into the system, the same way voting does. Makes you feel realized when it never fundamentally changes anything for good.
As I said, the things you don’t get by fighting are purely concessions so you shut up.
Why would you ‘shut up’?
That seems like a nonsensical sentence / opinion.
When you do shut up, they get taken away.
Passed laws just don’t evaporate into thin air after they’re done being passed, they continue to exist.
Every single fundamental working right we have was fought for with blood, not votes.
That’s not true, at all. Not everything was about slavery. I’m sure you can find some that were, and some that were not.
Our society wouldn’t exist if everything was anarchy 24/7.
Why would you ‘shut up’?
Concessions are given, the radicalization stops as the standards of living improve. People are satisfied and don’t pursue the deeper systemic issues. Once the radicalism has died down, efforts are made to remove those concessions. Sometimes it does not work, a lot of the times it does. The rise of neoliberalism was one of these efforts, the most succesful so far.
Passed laws just don’t evaporate into thin air after they’re done being passed, they continue to exist.
They don’t evaporate, they get repealed. Tons of things do. Roe v Wade, police defunding, literal underage labour laws got repealed this year. The Paris Agreement almost worked, but thankfully protesting brought it back.
Not everything was about slavery.
I’m not talking about slavery. Every fundamental working right we have comes from fighting. The 40-hour work week and 8-hour work day, the abolition of child labour, the minimum wage, pensions, sick leave, paid overtime, the right to strike… even weekends are thanks to fighting. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
You may notice some of these things have been dissapearing recently, and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. They were concessions given to us so we stopped being a threat. They don’t perceive us as one anymore, and so they’re trying to gain more power for themselves by stripping us of the things we earned. And part of this threat reduction is precisely the insisting on working within this “democratic” system, which will never meaningfully challenge them, because it is for them, by them, and controlled by them.
Will change is a constant, and there’s always going to be some people who want to gain power for themselves for their own sakes to the detriment of others, and you have to fight back against that.
It sounds like you’re so cynical about things that you’re saying it’s not even trying, not worth fighting for. Sincerely if you’re not just someone trying to reshape the narrative away from activism, I would suggest, as the Internet likes to say, to go outside and ‘touch grass’.
For the record I’m not saying you get to utopia and then you stop, the job is done. You got to fight for what you have to keep it.
But to not fight that’s just defeatist, and not something I’ll never do, and no one else should either.
I’m not being defeatist at all. Quite on the contrary, I’m telling you to fight.
My point is that fighting within the system never works. Everything we achieve that way eventually gets taken away from us. As long as the ruling class is still in power, they simply benefit the most from granting us as little as possible, and so they will always search for ways to do just that, and to take away things they previously granted us if they think we wont be threatening enough to take them back.
That’s why I am saying, do not hire lobbyists or email politicians or something. Or if you do, make sure it’s not the only thing you do. Join an org. Join an union, a party, a syndicate, organize. That is what has brought, brings and will bring real change. Fight against the system.
But for the love of god, don’t not vote. Us not voting is a major part of that system that’s made for them.
Congress app?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sunlightlabs.android.congress
If that link doesn’t work, just search for the word Congress in the Google Play store.
If you’re using an iPhone I’m sure there’s an iPhone app equivalent. Basically any app that lets you monitor the votes that your representative and Senators do.
For me it says that the app was developed for an earlier version of Android and is incompatible with one I own (mine is 10)
For me it says that the app was developed for an earlier version of Android and is incompatible with one I own (mine is 10)
I’m currently on Android 12. I’ve also used the app on Android 10 and Android 11 phones in the past, all from different companies.
It’s a simple app, not using any complex features of a phone, so it should be working fine.
I believe they’re talking about 5calls? https://5calls.org/
As a quick follow-up, I wish Lemmy and other online services had a bot where you can type in a one-line command that takes your zip code and then it replies with the contact information for your Senators and your Representative.
They have this on the official House website, but it only shows your house representative.
Be nice if it was able to look up from within the online forums that people work with directly; one less step.
Wow, didn’t expect down voting on this one. Would that be such a bad thing to have?
deleted by creator
When I’m suggesting is not something that that article tracks.
I’m talking about fight fire with fire, just like how Louis Rossman on YouTube did, to win farmers the right to be able to repair their own tractors, by hiring a lobbyist.
Ignore them. Lazy people will find ways to justify their being lazy. A healthy democracy takes work from everyone. If they refuse to own that on a personal level that falls on them and they have no right to complain when their lives fall in the shitter.
Ontario in Canada is being dismantled right now and it’s because the vast majority didn’t vote. They can make any excuse they want and it’s still an excuse. Any option but the current one was a good option. Fuck each and every lazy person
Ignore them. Lazy people will find ways to justify their being lazy. A healthy democracy takes work from everyone. If they refuse to own that on a personal level that falls on them and they have no right to complain when their lives fall in the shitter.
I appreciate the advice, but you have to push back against laziness and people who are so cynical that they don’t see any way of affecting change.
If there’s more of them than us with that kind of mindset then society falls apart.
You’re equating real life with Lemmy. Nothing waves hands here matters. We are on an online forum. I wish more people understood this.
Then what the fuck are you doing here. Go away
Well if you can prove that the comment I’m replying to is AI generated then I would agree with you.
It’s a great way for those in power to dilute the conversation by throwing up so much junk into the conversations so that no one can take any meaning out of them, but we’re not there yet.
Otherwise I’m assuming it’s a real live human being who live on the planet with me, and will respond accordingly.
Also those in power who would want others not the gain power would do their best to redirect people away from community town square conversations, where people can get together and discuss issues that’s affecting them all, to try to keep them from advocating for change that would be detrimental to their power.
You shouldn’t be discouraging the use of online public community town square conversations. You should never ever discourage intellectually honest conversations.
Nah, the vast majority don’t want gun control. All you city slicking fools who don’t value personal self defense and think someone else will save you.
You can piss your rights away I’ll keep mine.
100%
You’ve already pissed enough of my rights away thanks.
Why is the USA so dangerous that you need to be walking around armed to the teeth?
Because basically anyone can get their hands on any gun they can afford with minimal difficulty, and the police have no legal obligation to protect you.
…Though to be honest, guns don’t really help that much.
They don’t need someone to save them, because cities have less gun violence per capita then rural areas. All those guns don’t save you. And I say this as someone from a small town.
You’re not the majority.
K friend. Surround yourself with liberal echo chambers and so that groupthink really reitineeates your point. Fucking retard.
Would this include a 25% increase to hourly minimums? Because otherwise it only benefits salaried employees.
And what about workers who are paid by productivity and not time? Salespersons on commission, servers receiving tips, ride-share drivers?
I’m all for a 32-hour work-week; that’s what I have myself. But let’s not pretend this would be enough, or that the main beneficiaries are he working class.
“No loss in pay” as far as I can interpret it would mean getting paid the same for working 32 hours as you would have for working 40, yes
The autoworkers union the article refers to as an example is seeking a 46% pay rise to coincide with the transition to 32 hours.
My concern is the small business owners.
Massive corps - absolutely. Small mom and pop stores, 3-5 employee business… less inclined.
Save your tears.
The reason businesses exist is for owners to gain wealth from the labor of their workers.
No one is required to own a business.
Anyone not liking such a position may become a worker like the rest of us.
And then what happens when everyone chooses to be a worker?
I am not expecting business owners to choose to be workers.
I am noting that owning a business is a choice.
The reason for choosing to be a business owner is to gain profit from the labor of others.
Business owners are not heroes, and neither are they victims.
Save your tears, and support workers.
Man saying two sentences about something is a pretty low bar to “champion” it.
While I like this idea, this is not the argument union leadership should be making to achieve this goal:
Our union’s membership is clearly fed up with living paycheck-to-paycheck while the corporate elite and billionaire class continue to make out like bandits," said Fain in a statement last week. "The Big Three have been breaking the bank while we have been breaking our backs
A change in hours does nothing to address pay discrepancies and you need to pick one lane and fight for it and get it, then attack the other direction.
This. Too many different issues get conflated and then focus is lost and nothing changes
While I love this idea and Bernie… There’s no fucking way that’ll happen.
There is no way we will get a 40 hour work week
It will not happen if we just sit and wait, nor if we just vote, but if we build communities and unions, if we act each day to move our relationships with one another more deeply toward a real transformation, then we can build a society not for bosses but for everyone.
Companies can afford it
I can only see this happening hand in hand with Medicare For All and the decoupling of healthcare from full time employment.
Service jobs, which are currently 80 percent of US employment, require the same amount of hours with actual people present, e.g. you can’t wait more tables, or answer more customer service calls, in 20% less time.
Removing the cost of healthcare from employers will allow them to allocate some of the savings towards employee salaries instead of healthcare insurance.
Allow them to allocate some of the savings towards employee salaries? Why would they do that when they could pocket the difference like they have been doing to all other cost savings and productivity boosts?
How are the employers going to pay for the additional employees to work those 8 hours, while paying the existing employees the same salary for working 8 less hours?
The money has to come from somewhere.
P.s. Not all employers have CEOs making millions in bonuses. Nearly half of employees in the US work for small businesses , including single person businesses.
Maybe this is stupid question but…single person business just mean it’s one person doing everything right? In those cases, how would changing the standard full time to 32 hours affect them in any way?
They wouldn’t be changing their own salary or have to change anyone else’s salary unless I’m missing something
ETA: small business just means less than 500 employees, I’m sure a good number of them could still afford it. And an easy (and admittedly imperfect) solution could be just adding an exception for small businesses.
I’m not an economist but I bet that the answer is going to be similar to how employers now pay for the additional employees to work ever since work weeks got made to be 40 hours and not 60 or whatever back during the 1800s.
40 hours a week isn’t some magic number.
Nobody is saying you should have to do 40 hours work in 32 hours - rather the company hires more people to cover those hours.
This only works out in 9 to 5 jobs. There are ao many people out there that work very different hours. Many career fields that work a lot longer shifts wouod not be able to simply work less. It just doesn’t work that way.
Firefighters work 48 or 72 hours a week depending on the week. We can’t just say, ok cool. You work 32 hours a week now.
You don’t understand… After 32 hours it’s overtime pay instead of after 40
That’s totally understandable, but the “standard” work week is 40 hours. He’s just saying to change the standard. So if you’re job isn’t standard hours, it would probably just mean a little more overtime pay. Still a benefit to those people
The point is, why is 40 hours the standard? What makes that the standard? Who says it’s the standard?
Lobbyists for the 1%…ohhhhh…right…and now the real issue comes about.
This is the opposite of where the 8 hour day/40 hour week came from. In the US, it was fought for and won by various pro labor groups and unions in the early 1900s and became part of US law under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Removing the cost of healthcare from employers will allow them to allocate some of the savings towards employee salaries instead of healthcare insurance. Or just, y’know, keep the savings. On the bright side, it would mean you no longer depend on your job for healthcare, so people would have more freedom to quit.
