3 ms·

The US does have a rich history of labor movements and it's sad that they've been diminished - arguably because of perceived and actual corruption in living mem

The US does have a rich history of labor movements and it's sad that they've been diminished - arguably because of perceived and actual corruption in living memory - while working conditions for many haven't really improved. In the UK, also a nation with a very rich history of labour movements and philosophy (Engels family owned factories in Manchester, which he and Marx used as justification and evidence for many of the points made in Conditions of the Working Class), has also seen a recent decline in labour movements - but that's partly because working conditions have improved so massively in recent decades: employment rights, statutory holidays and minimum wage have all improved. However, in recent years something has changed, and I think a lot of people are now looking at holidays and working conditions in other countries: France (a socialist republic), Germany and Canada all seem to have better work/life balance, strong productivity, remain in the G7 and the roof hasn't fallen in. I do wonder whether the rise of zero-hour contracts and the gig economy, the debate in the US over tipping as a basis for not paying a higher minimum wage, the lack of holidays and so on, might lead to more interest in either new labour movements or reinvigorating the old. What's interesting for me is the productivity data shows that many businesses that need knowledge workers to function make more money and grow faster if they allow more work/life balance, but the messaging from the leadership pushes back against it. RTO and 5 days working weeks seem to be less effective than nomadic/remote work and 4x10 or even 4x8 working weeks. AI should, in theory, make that even more possible, but I don't think that's how most in the upper echelons of the Fortune 500 or FTSE 100 want it to work out. It's going to be an interesting thing to watch/be part of in years to come, but history tells us transition moments are often violent: can that violence be avoided?

brickfaced 1y ago
[flagged]
constantcrying 1y ago
[flagged]
DrScientist 1y ago
> RTO and 5 days working weeks seem to be less effective than nomadic/remote work and 4x10 or even 4x8 working weeks It does depend on how you measure it. Given diligent workers you could argue that working from home is better for 'on task' work, than the distractions of the office - however some of those distractions create value for companies that's hard to measure. I've lost count of the number of times I've had the polite - how are you type conversation - via a chance encounter in the office, that has lead to an idea or new connection that moved something forward, ( have you tried X? Have you talked to Y ). These don't happen when you are on task working from home. For companies which are knowledge based - this sort of spontaneous creativity happens more when people are all together and less when people have to intentionally reach out. Companies aren't just the simple sum of the individuals and a lot of the creativity happens off-task.
- PaulRobinson 1y ago
  If you look at layouts of buildings for organisations lauded for unusually high output - I'm thinking Bell Labs, Xerox, MIT Media Lab, and others - historically there has been mixed mode: the ability to do focus work, and also the ability to step away from focus and bump into people on the way to get a coffee or lunch. Today's working environment is 40+ hours in open plan offices with too few social spaces or meeting rooms for meaningful collaboration, so both focus work and casual collaboration have to be fought for. Regardless, what's interesting to me at least is that even while we can see productivity rose for many decades even as people moved to the 5 day, 8-hour week (which must was counter-intuitive - there was an expectation of a drop in outputs), we're seeing potentially more gains from moving to a 4 day week. RTO - for my type of work, and most work that needs "flow" for 2-3 hours a day, minimum - doesn't work for most people in 2025. Leaders are holding onto it in an irrational way, and that is leading to growing resentment. That, coupled with trying to pay people who have to show up (service workers, gig economy workers), with ever fewer working rights and poorer conditions, means something's going to give at some point. If all the menial work was done by robots, and we were all going to Bell Labs-style environments for 3-4 days a week, I think we'd all prefer that and actually, society might be a lot more productive as a result. But it's never going to happen. Not in our lifetimes, any way.
briandear 1y ago
Except when a company like Best Buy can fire a bunch of workers and replace them with Accenture who are paying workers $40/hour while holding them hostage with the H1B. At least 20% of workers in US construction (and even higher for residential) are illegal aliens. Then there is the offshoring of manufacturing: your local workers get too uppity? China can supply whatever you need. Don’t like the United Auto Workers? Move your factory to northern Mexico. What’s interesting is that tariffs helped American workers back in the day — whether or not that happens again remains to be seen. Unless the entire world gets onboard with worker rights, trade barriers remain one of the only ways to improve the working conditions of local people. Regarding the French example: they do have the so-called 35 hour week, but compare disposable income for the same job in the U.S. versus France: Americans have much higher disposable income than the French (even after accounting for health care costs.) The US could improve conditions, but pay will drop accordingly. That might be ok or it might not, but there is no free lunch.
- PaulRobinson 1y ago
  While trade barriers might improve working conditions, as you hint, it's going to come at a cost of disposable income. Those barriers work by raising the minimum price of a product, making it profitable to produce it in a more expensive labor market. When you make products more expensive though, it comes out the other side as people have to pay more to get the things they want, and you get inflation. If that is what people want, OK, fine. I don't think it's what has been sold to most Americans though - not only is the narrative that inflation going to be avoided, but income tax is going to be scrapped too. It's hard to find credible economists from any part of the political spectrum who agree. I hope it does work, because if it doesn't, what will follow will be horrible to watch from afar, even if as a result we end up with prices for most things coming down (if Chinese companies can't sell to the US, they'll just dump to the rest of the World).
- malcolmgreaves 1y ago
  The Republicans’ trade barriers do not solve any labor problems. They contract the total market size and tax economic activity. The French have higher disposable income because Americans are too busy wasting their income on sky high rents, sky high healthcare costs, paying for cars because it’s necessary, higher food and alcohol costs, etc. (Plus they have more of the thing money can’t buy: time). And these tariffs are going to make American’s lives even more expensive. (No one release in the world is going to oh these taxes: only Americans).

brickfaced 1y ago

[flagged]

constantcrying 1y ago

[flagged]

DrScientist 1y ago

> RTO and 5 days working weeks seem to be less effective than nomadic/remote work and 4x10 or even 4x8 working weeks It does depend on how you measure it. Given diligent workers you could argue that working from home is better for 'on task' work, than the distractions of the office - however some of those distractions create value for companies that's hard to measure. I've lost count of the number of times I've had the polite - how are you type conversation - via a chance encounter in the office, that has lead to an idea or new connection that moved something forward, ( have you tried X? Have you talked to Y ). These don't happen when you are on task working from home. For companies which are knowledge based - this sort of spontaneous creativity happens more when people are all together and less when people have to intentionally reach out. Companies aren't just the simple sum of the individuals and a lot of the creativity happens off-task.

PaulRobinson 1y ago
If you look at layouts of buildings for organisations lauded for unusually high output - I'm thinking Bell Labs, Xerox, MIT Media Lab, and others - historically there has been mixed mode: the ability to do focus work, and also the ability to step away from focus and bump into people on the way to get a coffee or lunch. Today's working environment is 40+ hours in open plan offices with too few social spaces or meeting rooms for meaningful collaboration, so both focus work and casual collaboration have to be fought for. Regardless, what's interesting to me at least is that even while we can see productivity rose for many decades even as people moved to the 5 day, 8-hour week (which must was counter-intuitive - there was an expectation of a drop in outputs), we're seeing potentially more gains from moving to a 4 day week. RTO - for my type of work, and most work that needs "flow" for 2-3 hours a day, minimum - doesn't work for most people in 2025. Leaders are holding onto it in an irrational way, and that is leading to growing resentment. That, coupled with trying to pay people who have to show up (service workers, gig economy workers), with ever fewer working rights and poorer conditions, means something's going to give at some point. If all the menial work was done by robots, and we were all going to Bell Labs-style environments for 3-4 days a week, I think we'd all prefer that and actually, society might be a lot more productive as a result. But it's never going to happen. Not in our lifetimes, any way.

briandear 1y ago

Except when a company like Best Buy can fire a bunch of workers and replace them with Accenture who are paying workers $40/hour while holding them hostage with the H1B. At least 20% of workers in US construction (and even higher for residential) are illegal aliens. Then there is the offshoring of manufacturing: your local workers get too uppity? China can supply whatever you need. Don’t like the United Auto Workers? Move your factory to northern Mexico. What’s interesting is that tariffs helped American workers back in the day — whether or not that happens again remains to be seen. Unless the entire world gets onboard with worker rights, trade barriers remain one of the only ways to improve the working conditions of local people. Regarding the French example: they do have the so-called 35 hour week, but compare disposable income for the same job in the U.S. versus France: Americans have much higher disposable income than the French (even after accounting for health care costs.) The US could improve conditions, but pay will drop accordingly. That might be ok or it might not, but there is no free lunch.

PaulRobinson 1y ago
While trade barriers might improve working conditions, as you hint, it's going to come at a cost of disposable income. Those barriers work by raising the minimum price of a product, making it profitable to produce it in a more expensive labor market. When you make products more expensive though, it comes out the other side as people have to pay more to get the things they want, and you get inflation. If that is what people want, OK, fine. I don't think it's what has been sold to most Americans though - not only is the narrative that inflation going to be avoided, but income tax is going to be scrapped too. It's hard to find credible economists from any part of the political spectrum who agree. I hope it does work, because if it doesn't, what will follow will be horrible to watch from afar, even if as a result we end up with prices for most things coming down (if Chinese companies can't sell to the US, they'll just dump to the rest of the World).
malcolmgreaves 1y ago
The Republicans’ trade barriers do not solve any labor problems. They contract the total market size and tax economic activity. The French have higher disposable income because Americans are too busy wasting their income on sky high rents, sky high healthcare costs, paying for cars because it’s necessary, higher food and alcohol costs, etc. (Plus they have more of the thing money can’t buy: time). And these tariffs are going to make American’s lives even more expensive. (No one release in the world is going to oh these taxes: only Americans).