5 ms·

According to this (probably sugarcoated) article, the average person in the US works more than 40 hours per week. Attendant to this claim is the assumption that

According to this (probably sugarcoated) article, the average person in the US works more than 40 hours per week. Attendant to this claim is the assumption that salaried employees are paid the same amount regardless of how much they work. We work more, and earn the same. We get zero guaranteed vacation days. We have labor policies that are worse than many impoverished countries. Our politicians are absolutely not working on solving this problem. What is needed are large scale strikes with a few simple demands, but it won't happen because people are too afraid of being cut loose and losing what little security they have.

Delmania 12y ago
In the United States, they will never do this. Our society is too heavily influenced by the "Protestant work ethic", and we have a folk lore about hard work and success. Plus many politicians are "pro-business" and take the stance many business owners do: that we should be grateful for having a job and be willing to sacrifice for our company without any expectation of reward.
- bjelkeman-again 12y ago
  The Dutch have a strong Protestant work ethic too, and are pro-business, good traders and still consider five weeks holiday normal. What is needed is people to realise that those five weeks is not lost business, but happy productive employees for the rest of the year.
  - Chinjut 12y ago
    Or, what's needed is for us as a society to decide we have some other fundamental goal than "productivity".
    - bjelkeman-again 12y ago
      Yeah. That too. Being a European I have slightly different possibilities than in the U.S., but fundamentally, having lived in both places, I belive one can be the change here, and there.
MadManE 12y ago
Why does this have to be solved at the legislative level? Can't we rally around the idea that we are worth more than we're being compensated, and change our behavior accordingly, or is that relegated only to legalizing pot?
- harmonicon 12y ago
  What would you suggest the workers do? Striking collectively until all business owners agree to pay more wage? How much more? What is fair? I would think a federal law is the best way to solve the problem while avoiding repeating the messy negotiations. Many workers depend on their paycheck to survive day to day precisely because of the meager amount. In today's USA there is very few union who can back workers up while on a strike. Edit: Part of what I meant by the third paragraph is that someone else will take the job at low pay if you work away. Thus the fact you are saying no individually has little effect on wages when the market (currently) is filled with job seekers. It takes a whole bunch of us saying no together to have an effect.
  - MadManE 12y ago
    It doesn't have to be a mass collective that starts the movement. In fact, all that is required is just turning down a job that doesn't pay enough. Individuals can make a difference, not just organized bullying. You're setting up false arguments when you introduce "fairness". We're talking about what's mutually beneficial for BOTH the business and the employee, and how to optimize productivity by (counter-intuitively) working the employees less. Setting a precedence that individuals are respected as valuable contributors to business and not simply Human Resources is the first step if you're on the business side. Doing what's best for yourself and the business, regardless of how hard you're perceived to be working is the first step on the employee side. There's no need to appeal to some imaginary benevolent authority to make the "bad people" be nicer.
    - ashark 12y ago
      The implicit demand here is that some individuals take on greater-than-usual risk to benefit everyone else, and if not enough people do that then We Can't Have Nice Things. It's a miracle of irrationality that this ever happens. Governments exist largely so we can accomplish things without relying on that. See also: the Free Rider Problem[1], Prisoners' Dilemma[2] As for organized bullying... well, surely you can see how well that argument applies in the other direction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma [edit] fix spacing on links
bsder 12y ago
> What is needed are large scale strikes with a few simple demands, but it won't happen because people are too afraid of being cut loose and losing what little security they have. Exactly. Productivity has more than doubled since 1970. That means we have 50% fewer jobs. We have a labor glut; striking in that environment isn't going to happen.
ripter 12y ago
We've successfully dealt with this issue in the past. "Ironically, it was only when Henry Ford took the wildly controversial step of shuttering his automobile manufacturing factories on Saturday and cutting daily work hours from the then-standard 12 to 8 that workers began not only enjoying leisure time at home, but became more efficient and productive at work." If Google and other big corps shorten work hours, then other companies might follow just like they did when Ford changed. Eventually it'll trickle up to legislation.
- Chinjut 12y ago
  In support of the grandparent comment, one does suppose Ford was motivated to his actions not purely of his own accord, but, rather, was also influenced by the ambient environment of a thriving and contentious labor movement, which in its agitations was not afraid to employ strikes, etc.
- cryoshon 12y ago
  So we're left waiting for the power players to make things better for us? There's probably a better way that doesn't rely on them, I think.

Delmania 12y ago

In the United States, they will never do this. Our society is too heavily influenced by the "Protestant work ethic", and we have a folk lore about hard work and success. Plus many politicians are "pro-business" and take the stance many business owners do: that we should be grateful for having a job and be willing to sacrifice for our company without any expectation of reward.

bjelkeman-again 12y ago
The Dutch have a strong Protestant work ethic too, and are pro-business, good traders and still consider five weeks holiday normal. What is needed is people to realise that those five weeks is not lost business, but happy productive employees for the rest of the year.
- Chinjut 12y ago
  Or, what's needed is for us as a society to decide we have some other fundamental goal than "productivity".
  - bjelkeman-again 12y ago
    Yeah. That too. Being a European I have slightly different possibilities than in the U.S., but fundamentally, having lived in both places, I belive one can be the change here, and there.

MadManE 12y ago

Why does this have to be solved at the legislative level? Can't we rally around the idea that we are worth more than we're being compensated, and change our behavior accordingly, or is that relegated only to legalizing pot?

harmonicon 12y ago
What would you suggest the workers do? Striking collectively until all business owners agree to pay more wage? How much more? What is fair? I would think a federal law is the best way to solve the problem while avoiding repeating the messy negotiations. Many workers depend on their paycheck to survive day to day precisely because of the meager amount. In today's USA there is very few union who can back workers up while on a strike. Edit: Part of what I meant by the third paragraph is that someone else will take the job at low pay if you work away. Thus the fact you are saying no individually has little effect on wages when the market (currently) is filled with job seekers. It takes a whole bunch of us saying no together to have an effect.
- MadManE 12y ago
  It doesn't have to be a mass collective that starts the movement. In fact, all that is required is just turning down a job that doesn't pay enough. Individuals can make a difference, not just organized bullying. You're setting up false arguments when you introduce "fairness". We're talking about what's mutually beneficial for BOTH the business and the employee, and how to optimize productivity by (counter-intuitively) working the employees less. Setting a precedence that individuals are respected as valuable contributors to business and not simply Human Resources is the first step if you're on the business side. Doing what's best for yourself and the business, regardless of how hard you're perceived to be working is the first step on the employee side. There's no need to appeal to some imaginary benevolent authority to make the "bad people" be nicer.
  - ashark 12y ago
    The implicit demand here is that some individuals take on greater-than-usual risk to benefit everyone else, and if not enough people do that then We Can't Have Nice Things. It's a miracle of irrationality that this ever happens. Governments exist largely so we can accomplish things without relying on that. See also: the Free Rider Problem[1], Prisoners' Dilemma[2] As for organized bullying... well, surely you can see how well that argument applies in the other direction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma [edit] fix spacing on links

bsder 12y ago

> What is needed are large scale strikes with a few simple demands, but it won't happen because people are too afraid of being cut loose and losing what little security they have. Exactly. Productivity has more than doubled since 1970. That means we have 50% fewer jobs. We have a labor glut; striking in that environment isn't going to happen.

ripter 12y ago

We've successfully dealt with this issue in the past. "Ironically, it was only when Henry Ford took the wildly controversial step of shuttering his automobile manufacturing factories on Saturday and cutting daily work hours from the then-standard 12 to 8 that workers began not only enjoying leisure time at home, but became more efficient and productive at work." If Google and other big corps shorten work hours, then other companies might follow just like they did when Ford changed. Eventually it'll trickle up to legislation.

Chinjut 12y ago
In support of the grandparent comment, one does suppose Ford was motivated to his actions not purely of his own accord, but, rather, was also influenced by the ambient environment of a thriving and contentious labor movement, which in its agitations was not afraid to employ strikes, etc.
cryoshon 12y ago
So we're left waiting for the power players to make things better for us? There's probably a better way that doesn't rely on them, I think.