4 ms·

I admire the spirit but I think fighting for a 32 hour or 4 day or etc workweek needs to be a broader fight than in just one sector. The 40 day week wasn't esta

I admire the spirit but I think fighting for a 32 hour or 4 day or etc workweek needs to be a broader fight than in just one sector. The 40 day week wasn't established just for scribes on their own right

aqme28 1y ago
It has to start somewhere. I can hardly criticize them for trying.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
  It feels like they should start with a field that has harder work or below average wages. Tech has it pretty easy already, I never found 40 hours/wk oppressive.
  - aqme28 1y ago
    Tech is good precisely for that reason. Tech workers have a lot more leverage than many other workers who work in more oppressive fields.
    - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
      Because tech workers aren’t being laid off by the tens of thousands in recent years? Tech work is the easiest to outsource.
      - hitarpetar 1y ago
        well which is it, do tech workers have it easy or have no power?
        godihavetoshit 1y ago
        [dead]
        raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        If you have a job - you have it easy. It’s “easy” because I can roll out of bed at 8:45, brush my teeth, wash my face and walk over to home office, log in at 9:00 and do some combination of coding, zoom calls, etc. Get off at 5-6 and walk downstairs to the gym. But that doesn’t mean that I can demand more money [1], a 32 hour work week etc. if I had still been at AWS at the beginning of the year, I couldn’t have demanded to work from home. [1] Well I could make more money if I were willing to work in an office and/or go back to BigTech. I’m not willing to do either.
      - aqme28 1y ago
        Sounds like now is the time for them to do this then. I feel like this point undermined your previous point.
        raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        Because unions are going to force companies not to lay people off?
    - FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
      Everyone just forgetting the H-1B visa system was specifically created to bring down tech worker pay.
  - 0xEF 1y ago
    Manufacturing (my field) would be a good place to start. Most of the guys I work with work overtime not because we have a bunch of work to do, but to inflate their weekly paychecks that much more. I've stopped reminding them that nobody ever got rich by working overtime, and it's a tool designed to keep them toiling away. Odds are if something like a 32 hour week passed, it would take a ridiculous amount of convincing for them to adopt it since overtime is so deeply entrenched in the culture.
    - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
      People don’t “get rich” by making more money and increasing the gap between income and expenses so they can put that toward investments to increase their net worth? What alternative are these factory workers going to do? “Learn to code and found a successful startup”?
      - 0xEF 1y ago
        What makes you think there's an alternative? Generally speaking, you are locked in the tax bracket you are born into. Sure, you might see a slight upward movement, here and there, but for the most part your wages will never outpace the economy around you unless: A. You are born into wealth B. You inherit wealth Most of us don't fall into either of those two things under an economic system that is designed to extract the most value from the people working in it, the profits of which bubble to the top and never trickle back down. This is why things like overtime are such an easy sell. If the company can afford to pay overtime, then there's no reason they can't afford to raise their workers hourly wages so they make the same money at 40 hours or less that they would working 50/60 hours. I'm here to tell you first hand that there's no increase in productive output of the company as a whole when everyone is working overtime versus when everyone is on 40 hours. That's a myth that needs to be quashed, especially with production being increasingly automated. As someone who visits our automtive and aerospace factories across the US frequently, the amount of guys I see standing around looking at smartphones is astounding, but so long as the company can post higher valuations by making it look like they're flush with both work and cash by offering copious overtime, they're happy. Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime and all that. Sorry, I forgot to address your part about investments. Those are another bit of snake oil sold to the middle class to sooth their financial woes. Fact is, unless you have a considerable amount of upfront capital, all you're doing is lending money for various fund managers to gamble with. They profit more than you do, even when you do see the marginal increases you might see.
Jeff_Brown 1y ago
Call me a slacker but 40 days a week really feels like too much.
- jack_tripper 1y ago
  It is when you factor in commute as well.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    And after WFH became a thing, we realize that we really do need to factor that in. You want me in the office every day? I have a one hour commute. Pay me for 9 hours. Or let me WFH, and pay me for 8.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Just have to reach 25x efficiency by using AI... So not a big ask in future...
0xEF 1y ago
I'd personally be more supportive of the 4-day 40-hour work week because I converted to that about six months ago, myself, and I'm not looking back. I find it works very well, for me. I'd be all about 32-hour work week, but provided either employers were required to pay us all more, or the price of _literally everything_ in the US consumer economy came down. Cutting my paycheck by 25% would be devastating to the arguably modest lifestyle I have built for myself, so I can't see that ever being offset by just being generally happier because I'm not wasting the single life I have making someone else rich.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  Generally people mean the same pay for less hours when they advocate for it, yes
wiether 1y ago
> Now we need to build a similar fighting movement for a 32-hour week and living wages for all workers.
aklemm 1y ago
The title says exactly that, does it not?

aqme28 1y ago

It has to start somewhere. I can hardly criticize them for trying.

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
It feels like they should start with a field that has harder work or below average wages. Tech has it pretty easy already, I never found 40 hours/wk oppressive.
- aqme28 1y ago
  Tech is good precisely for that reason. Tech workers have a lot more leverage than many other workers who work in more oppressive fields.
  - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
    Because tech workers aren’t being laid off by the tens of thousands in recent years? Tech work is the easiest to outsource.
    - hitarpetar 1y ago
      well which is it, do tech workers have it easy or have no power?
      - godihavetoshit 1y ago
        [dead]
      - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        If you have a job - you have it easy. It’s “easy” because I can roll out of bed at 8:45, brush my teeth, wash my face and walk over to home office, log in at 9:00 and do some combination of coding, zoom calls, etc. Get off at 5-6 and walk downstairs to the gym. But that doesn’t mean that I can demand more money [1], a 32 hour work week etc. if I had still been at AWS at the beginning of the year, I couldn’t have demanded to work from home. [1] Well I could make more money if I were willing to work in an office and/or go back to BigTech. I’m not willing to do either.
    - aqme28 1y ago
      Sounds like now is the time for them to do this then. I feel like this point undermined your previous point.
      - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
        Because unions are going to force companies not to lay people off?
  - FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
    Everyone just forgetting the H-1B visa system was specifically created to bring down tech worker pay.
- 0xEF 1y ago
  Manufacturing (my field) would be a good place to start. Most of the guys I work with work overtime not because we have a bunch of work to do, but to inflate their weekly paychecks that much more. I've stopped reminding them that nobody ever got rich by working overtime, and it's a tool designed to keep them toiling away. Odds are if something like a 32 hour week passed, it would take a ridiculous amount of convincing for them to adopt it since overtime is so deeply entrenched in the culture.
  - raw_anon_1111 1y ago
    People don’t “get rich” by making more money and increasing the gap between income and expenses so they can put that toward investments to increase their net worth? What alternative are these factory workers going to do? “Learn to code and found a successful startup”?
    - 0xEF 1y ago
      What makes you think there's an alternative? Generally speaking, you are locked in the tax bracket you are born into. Sure, you might see a slight upward movement, here and there, but for the most part your wages will never outpace the economy around you unless: A. You are born into wealth B. You inherit wealth Most of us don't fall into either of those two things under an economic system that is designed to extract the most value from the people working in it, the profits of which bubble to the top and never trickle back down. This is why things like overtime are such an easy sell. If the company can afford to pay overtime, then there's no reason they can't afford to raise their workers hourly wages so they make the same money at 40 hours or less that they would working 50/60 hours. I'm here to tell you first hand that there's no increase in productive output of the company as a whole when everyone is working overtime versus when everyone is on 40 hours. That's a myth that needs to be quashed, especially with production being increasingly automated. As someone who visits our automtive and aerospace factories across the US frequently, the amount of guys I see standing around looking at smartphones is astounding, but so long as the company can post higher valuations by making it look like they're flush with both work and cash by offering copious overtime, they're happy. Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime and all that. Sorry, I forgot to address your part about investments. Those are another bit of snake oil sold to the middle class to sooth their financial woes. Fact is, unless you have a considerable amount of upfront capital, all you're doing is lending money for various fund managers to gamble with. They profit more than you do, even when you do see the marginal increases you might see.

Jeff_Brown 1y ago

Call me a slacker but 40 days a week really feels like too much.

jack_tripper 1y ago
It is when you factor in commute as well.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  And after WFH became a thing, we realize that we really do need to factor that in. You want me in the office every day? I have a one hour commute. Pay me for 9 hours. Or let me WFH, and pay me for 8.
Ekaros 1y ago
Just have to reach 25x efficiency by using AI... So not a big ask in future...

0xEF 1y ago

I'd personally be more supportive of the 4-day 40-hour work week because I converted to that about six months ago, myself, and I'm not looking back. I find it works very well, for me. I'd be all about 32-hour work week, but provided either employers were required to pay us all more, or the price of _literally everything_ in the US consumer economy came down. Cutting my paycheck by 25% would be devastating to the arguably modest lifestyle I have built for myself, so I can't see that ever being offset by just being generally happier because I'm not wasting the single life I have making someone else rich.

nemomarx 1y ago
Generally people mean the same pay for less hours when they advocate for it, yes

wiether 1y ago

> Now we need to build a similar fighting movement for a 32-hour week and living wages for all workers.

aklemm 1y ago

The title says exactly that, does it not?