Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with all of this. And I also feel there desperately need to be changes. Having policies that benefit the average worker and incentivize having families. Parental leave for both genders & 3 weeks of PTO should be the standard. If businesses are profiting off of our labor, we should be guaranteed basic benefits that promote our health and wellbeing. We're spending ridiculous amounts of money on people in other countries, we have the wherewithal to benefit the citizens here. My hope is that both factions come together on these issues to better the lives of the working class.
While it seems we might agree, how we get there remains the "devil" in the details. The free market has to respond to the free market conditions, other wise it becomes more government intrusion and more 'socialistic'... which I will vehemently oppose and reject.
A business can not employ people if they do not make a profit from their employment. That's just basic common sense and economics 101. How much they make (margins) is determined by consumers willing to spend on a product or service.
Incentivize businesses, not regulate. However...nothing wrong with government taking on the role as economic guard rails, but I want less government and less regulation. I want business incentives to promote productive, competent, family workers and HUGH tax breaks for married couples with children. Does a 4 day work week get us there? No... no it does not.
People don't know good they have it... and our system is the best in the world to create wealth. However...
we do need it to make families a priority again, especially for those who are married and want children. We need the birth rate to go up and families to be families again.
Work and careers are no substitute for "a life". In that regard we might have some common ground.
Bringing back the draft would actually help. The military will test you to see what and where your innate skills are. People like doing what they're good at.
... just sayin'
We need to shrink the federal government before it gobbles up the rest of the country. It’s like a black hole, sucking up all the wealth and productivity. We’re now adding a trillion to the national debt every 100 days. National bankruptcy is coming.
Against that backdrop, the notion of cutting the work week is laughable. We all need to be working 6-7 days a week, actually, to pay down the debt. Just to pay the interest on the debt.
It's interesting how many people think business will do the right thing by their employees without regulations. Did we not all read The Jungle in high school? Unfettered capitalism does not support the workers--at the turn of the last century people could lose their jobs for getting sick or injured, there was no weekend or vacation time, workplaces could be unsafe for employees, wages could be the bare minimum, and workers were expected to be grateful and work hard. All of this changed because business was forced to change by the labor movement and it was enforced by government regulation. Change wouldn't have happened out of the goodness of CEO hearts, for the benefit of workers, because money and profits.
Last edited by fleetiebelle; 03-16-2024 at 11:57 AM..
If anyone thinks that a 32 hour work week with pay remaining at a 40 hour standard they really need to rethink the premise.
What will happen is that people will be laid off, productivity will have to increase and costs, therefore prices, will rise.
Yes. People like Bernie mislead on the whole "we're so much more productive" today than we were when these minimum wage laws were written. Yes, this is true, but this significantly increased productivity level has led to the economy looking a certain way and to certain quality of life expectations as a result of the added growth we've seen over the years; it's all relative. You reduce productivity and you'll have to deal with many other consequences.
I just got off a 72 hr shift, paid to sleep 10 hrs each night. I watch Direct TV, go online, whatever.
I normally work 48 hrs a week in 3 days so not sure I want to support this bill. I get 3 hrs of overtime each week yet with this bill I would get 10 hrs each week. Might be enough overtime to hire an additional employee AND reduce my hrs down to 32 per week
I just got off a 72 hr shift, paid to sleep 10 hrs each night. I watch Direct TV, go online, whatever.
I normally work 48 hrs a week in 3 days so not sure I want to support this bill. I get 3 hrs of overtime each week yet with this bill I would get 10 hrs each week. Might be enough overtime to hire an additional employee AND reduce my hrs down to 32 per week
That's actually what would likely happen. Cut you to 32 and hire someone else at 32 and cut the oevertime costs.
Even if not a shorter week, although I'm all for it, what I loved was when I worked for a doctor. I wasn't medical staff, I worked in the office. Three 12-hr days in a row, then 4 off. Sure, you lose the 1st day off to sleeping & resting, but then still have a 3-day weekend each week. Like someone said above, start days were staggered so there was always coverage.
I also worked software support long ago & we worked 4 10-hr days, which was also great. I had off Wed & every weekend & never felt so refreshed at work.
It was far easier to work 2 extra hours, to be honest... those 12-hr shifts were brutal, but I'd still do it again today given the chance. I also recognize that those with small kids or other family obligations might not be able to work their lives around long shifts.
FWIW, I've known several eastern Europeans who emigrated to Boston & after 1-yr hightailed it back home, saying we work far too much & have little time for R&R, life & fun. All of them got ill from our frantic city pace. I agree.
It's interesting how many people think business will do the right thing by their employees without regulations. Did we not all read The Jungle in high school? Unfettered capitalism does not support the workers--at the turn of the last century people could lose their jobs for getting sick or injured, there was no weekend or vacation time, workplaces could be unsafe for employees, wages could be the bare minimum, and workers were expected to be grateful and work hard. All of this changed because business was forced to change by the labor movement and it was enforced by government regulation. Change wouldn't have happened out of the goodness of CEO hearts, for the benefit of workers, because money and profits.
The Jungle was written in an era when millions of eastern Europeans were flooding into the country, willing to work really hard for long hours and low pay; and most of them spoke very limited English. The management could get away with exploitative conditions.
When labor is in shortage, like it is now, management has to offer more incentives.
Though, we are in the midst of a new wave of immigration that will eventually alleviate the labor shortage, so possibly exploitative practices will make a comeback. I guess we’ll find out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
