3 ms·
> he won't give more than 48 hours, but he's still requiring a 7-day schedule My read is that the workers want more, and the workers want 7-day schedules. The
by patcon 3y ago
> he won't give more than 48 hours, but he's still requiring a 7-day schedule
My read is that the workers want more, and the workers want 7-day schedules.
They want to work 7 days when there is full work, to store up for winter. But the economics don't make sense when they can't commit fully during that week.
I don't like how it sounds, but if the worker from the article if believed to be representative, then I think that's what's going on.
> and what prevents him exactly from changing the hourly
that's a good idea. a bit weird that it means everyone makes less (and is underpaid by industry standards) if they don't work through the harvest season though... seems like a tough situation all-around
Disclaimer: I'm a socialist and cofounder of a tech worker co-operative, so I favour workers rights. I'm just admitting that this situation is confusing :)
- cxr 3y ago> My read is that the workers want more, and the workers want 7-day schedules. No. This is a classic instance of the X/Y problem. If they began working half the number of hours in a day for half the number of days in a week that they had been before, except bringing home the same amount of money, there would be no issue; no one would show up saying, "We want 7-day schedules". The workers don't want 7-day schedules. They want to be paid greater than or equal to what they were making when they were working 7 days a week under the old arrangement.
- inemesitaffia 3y agoI don't exactly know how asparagus works, but isn't the harvest time for anything limited? Is this like fishing where you make $200k in two weeks then file for unemployment for the year?
- cxr 3y agoI don't understand why this question is posted as a reply to my comment.