Bernie Sanders Champions 32-Hour Work Week With No Loss in Pay
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."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/4-day-workweek-bernie-sandersOpen linkView original on lemm.ee
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.
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
Oh I'm sure that's what keeps them from taking a pro-american stance, the name calling
They'll still vote straight R down the ballot regardless. I'll take payment up front before I start kissing their asses, thanks.
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.
Yeah, they're terrible at combating the Republican messaging for sure
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 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.
“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.
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.
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.
...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
If gov't intervention makes both those options impossible--might I suggest constant verbal and psychological abuse?
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
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.
I started working a 6:30am-2:30pm job and it's life changing. The first hour is just getting settled, I spend lunchtime organizing my calendar and Emails, and I still have time for a full day of activities after work.
i wish i could do that, but my body is not programmed for such early rising. i tried and it is a wonder i didnt crash my car on the way to work
It's definitely not for everyone! I'm one of those weirdos who wakes up super early every day naturally. My partner, on the other hand, naturally sleeps til 10 or 11.
I am super jealous. Imagine finishing work and have time to hang out with your friends and family. Living the dream.
Being up that early (for me) means I need to be in bed by 10pm, so home by 9. Most of my friends are not available at 3pm and usually stay out until 10-11. It can lead to feeling very isolated in my experience.
I'm not OP but I worked a 6-3 job for a year or so, gladly swapped it out for a 10-7pm, get to sleep in and stay put late.
But it's all about preferences and priorities.
I think that the stage of life you're in would also play a huge part in what hours you'd prefer. When I was single, I'd prefer later hours like you so I could have a more relaxed morning. Now that I'm married with kids, however, an earlier schedule would mean more family time. Especially as school events are often scheduled for the early evening.
Most definitely. Most of my life was external to my home, so having others available at the same time was important. I'd probably feel much the same as you if I had a family.
I'm single and I enjoy the early work because it means I have more time after work to do things with friends (or go to the gym or whatever)
I guess if your friends are available before normal work hours end, it makes sense.
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!!!!!!!!!"
Unfortunately, thanks to Democrats and Republicans, the four-day work week is an impossibility in the USA.
Democrats and Republicans
read: Corporations
Only impossible because the voters keep choosing corporatists rather than representatives.
Do you know any representatives?
Of course workers gain nothing by asking elites.
All depends on organization.
The speech excerpts from the article say the same.
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."
that's exactly what I work, and my employer has been pushing to remove that in our pay negotiations. they backed down to making it "optional" but it sounds like all new hires wouldn't be on the 9 day fortnight system.
sad how things are getting worse not better
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.
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.
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.
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]
1: Google Books Ngram Viewer.
2: Defined in Collins. Used in example sentences by: Cambridge, Webster, American Heritage
I mean. Feel free to, I guess?
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.
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.
Yes! That is what "effect" means.
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.
🙄
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why would you 'shut up'?
That seems like a nonsensical sentence / opinion.
Passed laws just don't evaporate into thin air after they're done being passed, they continue to exist.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I believe they're talking about 5calls? https://5calls.org/
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)
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would absolutely love to only work 32 hours a week instead of 40, 45 or 50.
I would also love four weeks vacation a year, full healthcare coverage and a unicorn in my backyard please.
Except for the unicorn, your last paragraph is my reality. Oh and it's five weeks vacation, actually. My wife even has six. Sick days not included. Those are all part of the universal health care we have.
38h work week btw. Rarely overtime.
I have 35 days on my current job but it's the first time. Normally it's been 30. I'm in Sweden.
And we don't work no 40 hours here. People come in around 9 and leave around 16 with an hour lunch break and a lot of talking and slacking during the day. This is in IT and it's been like that on every IT job I've ever had.
Nobody can or want to focus for 8 hours per day their entire lives, that's madness. We are humans. I usually focus for maybe 4 hours to get something done but I don't push myself to work more then necessary. My salary doesn't go up with more work produced.
EU?
It's like this in all Scandinavian countries.
6-7 weeks paid vacation.
Free healthcare (except dental. Also we still pay for prescription drugs, just not insane prices).
37 hours per week.
Almost equal parental leave (you're forced to take a month off work, paid of course, mothers a bit more, but then split is as you want).
And then keep in mind that we pay 40-60% taxes depending on income.
When we had our son, I had 2 weeks time off from work. HR sat me down and told me "by law, we can't fire you until you take one day over the 2 weeks of unpaid time off. You are so lucky! You used to get zero time off. I remember when we had our baby, I worked until midnight while my wife was in labor."
Then I was fired 3 months later for "subpar performance" and they noted I seemed fatigued and frequently forgot things. Like, no shit I had 3 hours of sleep per day for months.
We pay about 25-30% in taxes IIRC but health insurance bleeds you dry. We just incurred $4500 medical debt because my wife had to go to the hospital. $100,000 student loan debt. $35,000 child birthing costs, of which $8500 was out of pocket.
Yeah, all of those expenses would've been covered by the taxes where I live. Even the student debt - we get about $900 per month while studying and education is free.
Y'all need some democratic socialism
Sounds a whole lot like Norway, presuming their wife is 60+ years
Man that sounds so great. Currently work weeks are varying between 40,45 and 50. PM. I'm up to about 2 1/2 weeks vacation a year working for a small business. But at least they let me take it, unlike my friend who works at AWS who hasn't had a vacation in 5 years.
Family also pays $2400/month in health insurance payments, although 2/3 of that is covered by our employer. $6,000 deductible.
Apart from the mystical horse, those aren't fantastical things. France has a 35 hour work week, many countries have 4 weeks vacation as the norm, and most rich countries have full healthcare coverage. These are policy choices, not impossible dream worlds.
It's sad that over here in America people are conditioned to think they are fantastical things.
In Europe, 4 weeks is the absolute minimum, many countries have higher mandated minimums and people get often extra on top. There are many things wrong in Europe, but the vacation policy is decent.
Err, what is your main criticisms about Europe?
Regarding employment.
It's pretty much given that the pension system of many countries will collapse, so young people are paying into a system which they either won't be able to use or will be heavily disadvantaged. IMHO the pension system should be (at least partially) privatized, but it's of course too late, damage is done.
Income is taxed too heavily and wealth too little. These days it's pretty much impossible to buy a house for many families even though the population doesn't grow and new houses are being built. You can't amass wealth with work, only woth inheritance.
Some worker protection laws should be weakened, specifically laying off people is often pretty much impossible which makes people allocation inefficient and companies conservative.
In France I work 32 hours, have 7 weeks holiday and awesome healthcare.
I have cows in place of a unicorn though.
Republicans have told me that there's no way the country can survive that
They lied.
I mean they have to raise the retirement age and had (are having?) Protests about it the whole year didn't they
"Have to"? That's obviously more than up for debate, especially considering how many people protested.
God forbid they consider increasing taxes for the rich instead.
It's 64, that's lower than the US has ever been
That's just because they are whining
I was just kidding about the unicorn, as living in the US it seems just about as likely to get a unicorn as getting universal healthcare or vacation.
😅🦄
Anyway, my son loves unicorns and I grew up watching my little pony so whatever
I don’t know why you throw the unicorn in there as if the rest of your comment is some crazy idea. Most of Europe functions extremely well under the work conditions you described, why is America somehow incapable of having the quality of life our European cousins have?
Oh please. Would that ever work, besides the dozens of countries and corporations that have managed without issues?
Besides what would you do with the unicorn poop
Some organic fertilizer for the garden, of course!
Clean fuel for the furnace
The vacation period is a minimum standard in the EU.
In the UK minimum holiday entitlement is 28 days. I am always appalled at how badly the US allows it workers to be treated. I really wish the US would start thinking more about working to live and not living to work.
If people who are negatively affected by it would stop voting for people who make it a campaign promise to never offer these things, we can't get anywhere
I work 35 hours a week, have six weeks of holiday plus bank holidays and universal healthcare. It's not impossible.
I have basically this in the UK
Some of those things are possible. Why not try to get them?
How?
I asked our company owner, and such healthcare plans simply do not exist in the US.
Fun fact: government-based healthcare of any sort is great for employers and employees, and results in more money for both
This assumes a "worst-case implementation" resulting in UK level taxes and just a change to who manages insurance/payment, and is true for both a public option and single-payer system.
I have 5 weeks vacation and universal health care. I'm just pushing for the 32 hrs now.
It's depressing that you've been convinced that full healthcare coverage is as unrealistic as a unicorn in your backyard.
While I like this idea, this is not the argument union leadership should be making to achieve this goal:
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
Man saying two sentences about something is a pretty low bar to "champion" it.
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
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.
My old place could really do this.
He's right
For the sake of comparison…
1940 median US male salary was $956. Women earned about 62¢ on the dollar to men.
Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $21,800.
Median US income (overall) in 2023 is $42,800.
You mean to tell me productivity has gone up 4.8x, and I don’t even see 2x the increase in salary.
Put otherwise, if my hours are worth nearly 5x to you, why aren’t they even worth 2x to me?
Could you remind me, what was the alternative to Biden again?
a gun to our collective head or else we wouldn't have voted for him
An actual leader who isn't one foot in the grave
I understand the dislike of some of Biden's choices and policies and also disapprove of some of them, but let's not pretend these are on the same level as the buffoon's.
Yeah, this guy goes on like we had a real choice. It was literally Biden or the fascist who will make things even worse. What choice did we have?
Abstention. Voting the lesser evil is a downward spiral.
Are you rejecting a call to build organized labor across the country because you have a grudge against one man for endorsing another man?
The call is to build organized labor across the country, giving workers the power to shape society toward our interests, not to expect the ruling class to offer voluntary concessions that have no benefit to them.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding the message.
The speech is not giving a promise that Bernie Sanders will make gains on behalf of workers.
Rather, it is giving encouragement to workers to make gains for ourselves, by building our own power against the oligarchs.
I think he is taking too big of a chunk off. If this were to be phased in with 4-day work weeks at 10 hours a day with 2 breaks could be a starting point. Companies get the same amount of production hours and save 20% on building costs, energy, etc.
This only works if your pay doesn't get reduced, which it always does. Obama cut full-time and suddenly everyone had to get two jobs to pay rent
Apparently you didn't even read the headline.
I'm old enough to know what the end goal of this is, corporations cutting peoples hours to "trim the fat" and getting away with it like always
Only a complete idiot actually believes this crap. Companies are not going to keep your wages if they can cut them, and they will. So a 32 hour work week will do absolutely nothing but reduce take home pay in the end
This is the same as Obama forcing workers to get 2 jobs just to make ends meet and this is all these policies wind up doing, giving less to the people and taking away more from them
That is why we need unions.
That's what people keep missing, astonishingly.
Even 32 hours a week with a proportional decrease in pay would be a huge improvement.
You shouldn't have to take a cut in pay for this. Productivity has increased and the benefits of the productivity increase has only gone to the ultra wealthy.
But negotiating only for higher wages per hour and lower hours as a package deal could make it harder to get either. It probably depends employer to employer, but doing both at the same time would be hard to make them do.
Which is why we need to build class solidarity, unions, and strike. A hundred years ago, people fought for everything they could get. They didn't say "safe working conditions or a 40h work week." They said, "we want all we can get."
Yes that'd be good. But I still don't see the advantage of only talking about these as a package deal.
If you start from a compromised position you will only get less.
How does putting these as separate line items in negations compromise the position?
Because it's easier to pick them apart separately. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book.
Yeah not for everyone. I'm thinking higher paying areas like technology and programming where pay is high but people are getting really burned out.
I'm a programmer, and it's very different from hourly work. Realistically, any programmer is coding for like 1-2 hours a day. There are meetings so we understand the problem we have to solve, and a lot of time thinking through the problems and architecture solutions. We're not sitting there typing for 8 hours a day, or at least those are the ones getting burned out. Realistically I'm working like 30 hours a week already, with only 10 hours being real coding, the rest being talking, researching, learning, and pondering. Maybe I'm lucky I work somewhere that that stuff isn't seen as slacking.
Ugh. I once did some independent programming and the guy insisted I do it in front of him because it involved his proprietary data. So much griping about the time I spent looking at documentation or referring to coding assistance sites like Stack Overflow. I quit on day two.
Honestly as a mid-career IT person, I'd take a 30-40% cut for that extra day without a second of hesitation.
Uh no, speak for yourself and yourself only. I don't want less money, that wouldn't be an improvement
He can't, but workers can.
Our fate rises or falls by our capacity to join in solidarity.
The issue I see with this is the prices of things, if you had to pay some one 40 hours of wages for only 32 hours of work plus having to hire someone to fill that extra hours (if you can even find someone) will mean prices will probably increase.
Don't get me wrong only working 32 hours a week sounds amazing but as someone who works 60 hrs per week and still struggles to pay bills it's not something for me
It's exactly for someone like you. You should be able to afford your bills without working yourself to death, that's the point.
But if I have time off I spend more money
If you're working 60hrs per week and still struggle to pay bills, that means they are not paying you enough! Any job should be sustainable with giving only a reasonable amount of your time. (40 hours per week is not reasonable, it is unbalanced with living your life)
I feel like $40 per hour is plenty enough. But income tax sucks when you rent out your house sooo.
It's not something for 90% of workers, these policies only help the rich, not the poor
32hr week is fine, but what does he mean by no loss in pay?
The mandated work week is something a central regulator controls, and the pay is not.
The drop in productivity because of working 32hrs instead of 40hrs will be much less than 20%, that's for sure. Maybe there'll be no drop at all. That doesn't always translate to no drop in pay.
If by 32hrs we mean 4 days, then it frees that day for other workers (if we imagine any job with a physical workplace). The pay is a result of the balance of interests. It will become less.
And personally I'd say 35hr week is a better idea - as in 5 days of 7hrs .
I was with you until:
I think the idea is to free up an entire extra day, allowing travel, an extra day to run errands, etc. For many, there is basically no difference between working 8 hours or working 7 if they still have to commute, get dressed and get their brain wrapped around whatever is going on in work mode.
Yes, with 4 days, 8 hours the idea is what you described.
With 5 days, 7 hours the idea is that you don't work effectively anyway in the last 1-2 hours, not doing many useful things, adding to depression and also obviously still using that time, so it's better to get some rest or social activity or take a walk instead.
True... realistically knowledge workers are only productive for a few hours at a time. The rest of an 8 hr+ day is just wasted pretending to be busy.
Getting them out of the work environment gives a good chance to reboot and come back fresh.
I work an 8 hour day and do that anyway. You are mandated a lunch and 2 breaks. Take a walk during that time. Another whole day off is a far better way to refresh yourself completely.
Yes, to each his own. Which is why I'd like both to be valid options.
(Also in my country you are mandated 1 big break for lunch only, but nobody generally looks wrong at you for going to the bathroom, for some coffee, to smoke etc.)
No thanks! I'll stick with The Bern on this one.
Depends on the purpose. If you want for the shorter week to be normalized - then surely yes.
And if you want that "no loss in pay" - then my idea is better to that end.
Bernie is advocating for a 4 day work week with no loss in pay, and you're arguing against your own best interest before anyone has even objected. Why? I'm not interested in a 7 hour day. 7 hours, 8 hours, it makes very little difference. But 4 days vs 5 days is a major quality of life improvement.
Yeah, sure, and I'm advocating for long power lines with no loss in power. Bernie doesn't explain how's he (even algorithmically) going to evaluate which pay is "no loss in pay" and how is he going to enforce it.
That's not really true though. The majority of workers in the US are non-exempt full-time employees, which means employers are required to pay overtime for anything over 40 hours. Lowering that threshold will mean those 8 extra hours are more valuable and will hold wages steady.
They do that anyway, but the whole wage market shifts upward because of the non-exempt regulations. The whole reason we even had a middle class to loose was the labor laws established from union strikes and labor reform in the early 20th century. The only reason you have a weekend is because of those laws. Regulation like this is the first step toward improving labor down the board.
ofc we should also raise min wage and/or establish universal benefits to head off automation and other productivity improvements, but those are bigger reforms.
I didn't consider overtime. Just what the title says - 32hr week with the same pay as 40hr week with all other things unchanged.
With this interpretation - yeah, but then Bernie's mention of "no loss in pay" doesn't make sense, it happens automatically.
We make gains by organization not legislation.
Read the excerpts of the speech quoted in the article. All is plainly said.
Lmao garbage take. Please never be put in charge of anything important.
Nice contribution to the thread.
Same to you?
I've been responsible for some relatively important things from time to time, and that's just as likely to happen in future.
While your reply is not very convincing and recursively makes me think I'd not entrust to you anything I really want done in a satisfactory way at least.
Well of course you wouldn't want me making decisions, as they wouldn't have the same garbage thought processes yours would.
I don't think my thought processes are garbage. They at least have evolved past the mistakes most people here do.
Anyway, you haven't provided any argumentation, just came here and started throwing feces. I don't argue with monkeys, at least not after I fully realize I'm talking to one.
Oh wahhhh, you can't have risky sex and abort babies now. So fucking sad for your plight.
The extra money comes from the management not robbing their employees blind.
You're getting down voted for expressing legitimate concerns, and nobody is giving reasons why they disagree with you. I thought we left this kind of interaction behind with reddit.
Anyways, any major shift will have downsides, but it doesn't mean it isn't viable in the long term.
That's a fair point, people would be making the same amount of money anyway and have more room to spend it. It would also decrease the likelihood of overtime due to penalty rates, and potentially increase the job slots as more people would need to work to fill the lost time for some jobs.
I suppose like anything, the best way to do it is gradually.
I have the same kind of reaction, just in the opposite direction.
I'm fine with campaigning for higher salaries, I'm fine with campaigning for shorter work week, but I'm allergic to the combination of both, because it's usually accompanied by claims that the productivity won't go down as a result, which is simply delusional and reeks of populism.
Anecdotal evidence: I work in software. We get more work done after time off, and much less work done near the end of a 5day work week, our data shows.
I'm curious how that applies to different fields.
Time is not directly proportional to productivity.
My job, I notice I'm often somewhat off-flow after a vacation or an unexpected day off. But I also drop off significantly after six hours. RN I do work 32 hrs: 3x 6-hr days and 2x 7-hour days, more or less.
I'm an SWE too, and my anecdote is that I certainly can't do work in 4 days what I'm currently doing in 5 days.
My point wasn't that 4 days outputs more work than 5 It was that the average output per day decreases with a longer work week, though one or two people we work with manage to be pretty consistent.
Also I think that 4 days of productivity is enough.
Our most effective co workers have had special work hours and agreements. Some worked 4 days on 3 days off, some work 3 hours less a day. They are the ones who consistently pushed out good stuff, were the least distracted, and had the space to occasionally work extra if they felt like it. The only reason they could do that was because they didn't rely on the 5 day work week to keep themselves afloat.
I wish I could be in that boat but unfortunately my wage means I have to work all 5 days to support myself and family comfortably.
Good, but many do claim exactly this to support the "32 hours with no loss in pay".
I can believe that, but the causation is often the opposite - they are the most effective, thus they have the biggest leverage to negotiate better conditions for themselves. At least that's what I've seen.
I have looked up some of those studies in the past and they measured productivity by the company revenue which seems incredibly flawed.
The studies were limited to office workers too. There's no way a truck driver can cover the same distance 25% faster.
What about people that work in education? This is not possible to attain if kids go to school for the amount of time they currently do. Teachers, paras, custodians, IT people etc have no choice in this unless kids have less time in the classroom as well. So unless all those people get paid more to keep doing 40 while the rest gets more life back you'll be hard pressed to find people that want to work education..like anyone wants to work education these days anyways.
Good question you raise. For elementary school make it 4 days a week, parents should have another day with their kids. For highschool, many teachers do one or two subjects which don't necessarily have to cover all five days, they can swap out.
Even a 32-hour week won't guarantee you'll be off the same day as your kids. Subsidized daycare should also be a thing.
If you're talking about the children of teachers, they're almost assuredly going to have the same days off.
No, I'm talking about everyone else's children. Just because they get Fridays (for example) off doesn't mean their parents do too. They could work Tuesday-Friday.
Couldn't you just hire several more teachers and staff to switch out certain days subjects/coverage to achieve full 5 day coverage while also cross training people to better fill gaps. Also the education system is mostly just there to turn us all into workers of some sort, so as the regular work week shortens, perhaps the school week should as well. Especially if we're trying to maximize that extra family time.
I think part of the point of a less taxing work week/environment is part of the draw that could bring people back into these sorts of jobs.
Hire more teachers and roster them.
Next question
Your answer is so incredibly stupid it's hilarious. Where you gonna get the magic money from? You obviously never have worked in education..some teachers are making 35k a year in America you think they wanna add more teachers? Youre fighting against a government that doesn't help our public education system enough at all. "next question"
Your answer isn't constructive, and your "next question" line is unnecessarily glib.
Finding good teachers is hard enough as It is.
Your last sentence supports my point though. I'm not suggesting that there's a shortage of good teachers, just stating the fact that it's difficult to find and retain good teachers.
I come from a family full of teachers and educators and even a superintendent. I've witnessed firsthand how public education can chew up and spit out even the most dedicated teachers.
Not true, we could hire more school staff if needed, if we paid them a livable and decent amount... It really would be that simple of a fix
Yeah. We all want something for nothing. Fortunately, there are still enough adults in the U.S. who recognize that just doesn't work in the real world.
I mean, cool, but nothing will happen because one old guy says this.
Someone has to be an early proponent of it. Its not we could go from no congresspersons says such to suddenly one minute all of them decide to announce they support it simultaneously.
Seriously. People must think the $15 min wage and student debt forgiveness just sprung from nothingness to have support across the party. These things start with progressives making the case and saying "this is possible".
It doesn’t mean much coming from Bernie. He’s all talk. He says these things but he rarely has thought out plans on them.
He proposes bills all the time. It's not his fault the rest of the corrupt senate won't give them a fair hearing.
Bills themselves aren’t well thought out plans. He needs to work with his peers to get legislation passed, not just write up his ideals and act like everyone will fall in line. That’s not how anything works.
When his peers are all owned by corporations, how can he?
If the “reform” in work reform is a serious attempt and not just a circle jerk comments like these are not productive.
And yet, it's true. Name one other senator that hasn't been bought.
What's he supposed to do? Blackmail, threaten, or kill most of congress? Until he has plans for those, having bills written won't do much but waste time that he could be better using talking about the ideas.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic. A group of 100 having to do what 1 person says is not a democracy. The vibes on this subject are uncomfortably authoritarian. We’re talking about fundamental level stuff here. If you’re in a group of friends deciding where to go to dinner, people can vote and compromise on where they want to go, or you can have one person have total control and decide for everyone. The latter isn’t how the US should be run.
I'm try to figure out what you want from him. The topic is how one person can't do anything and you're saying he's not doing enough by trying to spread the ideas, so I'm trying to figure out what you want him to do as one person if its not promoting the idea.
I want him to come up with a viable plan to get us to where he wants us to be, not just say we should have it. He needs to get enough Senators to support it so it’ll pass, and yes that means compromising on his ideals.
He's never tried being friendly with his coworkers, maybe he should give that a go
You really truly believe that in his entire political career spanning multiple decades that he's never once been friendly?
That's not what I said and you know it
How do you think politics works? It's all talk. Then they vote on a bill.
Groups of elected representatives are put into committees that workshop ideas / bills and gauge interest. In order to pass committee and receive broad support, riders are typically added to allow other representatives to get something for their constituents. Compromises are made, not everyone gets everything they want, and we move forward.
Senators don’t make proclamations with no plans and immediately get bills passed.
There have been studies showing no loss in productivity too. But rich people want to fuck us over for no reason 🤷♀️
There is a reason. If our lives get too easy, that gives us time to enact our free will and choose to do things they don't want.
Instead they keep us focused on paying the next bill.
More time to work on your community means that people have less food bills and health bills and rent. If we help eachother out were not helping them.
For some people it's because an old guy said it. Or because he's rich. Or whatever excuse they have to not make anything better because they fear change.
First less hours but what's next? More pay? Healthcare? HOUSING SUBSIDIES?!?! 😱 Then who will be low class enough for certain people to look down on?
By that logic, nothing will happen because one person ever said anything.
You're underestimating how influential Bernie is. He'll never be POTUS, but he got into people's heads in a big way.
No.
You have to join a union or form a union.
If your workplace is already organized, then build further strength through solidarity, help other workers around you, and at every turn find ways to erode the power of the bosses.