Recent progress toward shorter hours among certain sectors of UK workers has set a starting point for a winnable demand for workers everywhere: a four-day workweek.
A commensurate increase in pay so that you are making the same money but working fewer hours. I don’t think anyone seriously puts forward this idea and proposes achieving it via having everyone earn 20% less.
If it’s just an increase in pay, a lot of us are just going to work even more. Because now we get to survive. Let me know when you’re talking about real economic changes that help everyone thrive.
Well in that case you’d still benefit from the change because overtime would kick in after 32 hours instead of 40. But this is just one change and shouldn’t be thought of as the entirety of the labour movement. Of course reducing inequality and putting more of the nation’s wealth in the hands of working people is a part of the project.
Well in that case you’d still benefit from the change because overtime would kick in after 32 hours instead of 40.
“Overtime” doesn’t “kick in” when you’re working at your third job that only gives you 20 hours a week because they “can’t afford” to pay overtime every time you have to cover someone else’s shift.
Of course reducing inequality and putting more of the nation’s wealth in the hands of working people is a part of the project.
As we continue to move away from full-time jobs to a gig based economy, none of this applies to anyone that needs it. If you want to put money into the hands of working people, just put money in their hands. Capitalism is incapable of providing care for the members of society that don’t have capital, and trying to fix society’s problems with Capitalist tools is doomed to fail.
I agree. In my view, the project of the labour movement is socialism. Part of getting people on board with that vision is it’s proponents winning tangible benefits for people like that outlined in the article. You can’t just get to socialism by critiquing the current system, you have to build a sustained, organized movement and the labour movement, being a movement of the working class, aligns nicely along the idea of putting the working class in charge.
A commensurate increase in pay so that you are making the same money but working fewer hours. I don’t think anyone seriously puts forward this idea and proposes achieving it via having everyone earn 20% less.
If it’s just an increase in pay, a lot of us are just going to work even more. Because now we get to survive. Let me know when you’re talking about real economic changes that help everyone thrive.
Well in that case you’d still benefit from the change because overtime would kick in after 32 hours instead of 40. But this is just one change and shouldn’t be thought of as the entirety of the labour movement. Of course reducing inequality and putting more of the nation’s wealth in the hands of working people is a part of the project.
“Overtime” doesn’t “kick in” when you’re working at your third job that only gives you 20 hours a week because they “can’t afford” to pay overtime every time you have to cover someone else’s shift.
As we continue to move away from full-time jobs to a gig based economy, none of this applies to anyone that needs it. If you want to put money into the hands of working people, just put money in their hands. Capitalism is incapable of providing care for the members of society that don’t have capital, and trying to fix society’s problems with Capitalist tools is doomed to fail.
I agree. In my view, the project of the labour movement is socialism. Part of getting people on board with that vision is it’s proponents winning tangible benefits for people like that outlined in the article. You can’t just get to socialism by critiquing the current system, you have to build a sustained, organized movement and the labour movement, being a movement of the working class, aligns nicely along the idea of putting the working class in charge.