Why isn't there a fight for a 6-hour work day?

[Veovis]

Reading about the history of the U.S. labor movement has shown me many examples of workers fighting for an 8-hour day when they were made to work 10 or 12 hours at a time. Now decades after the 8-hour day has been made law, why is no one fighting for an even shorter day of, say, 6 hours? Is it simply because unions have become so weak?

[Tovarisch]

We can't fight for six hour workdays until we begin to enforce eight hour workdays. A lot of companies decide to ignore the eight hour work day rules, and often force employees to stick around for an added hour or two. My mom is supposed to finish work at 4:30 pm, but her boss often makes her work til 5 or 6 under the pretext of "Finish What You Start". Unfortunately, many employees are in no position to argue with their boss as they fear getting fired.

[Veovis]

We can't fight for six hour workdays until we begin to enforce eight hour workdays. A lot of companies decide to ignore the eight hour work day rules, and often force employees to stick around for an added hour or two. My mom is supposed to finish work at 4:30 pm, but her boss often makes her work til 5 or 6 under the pretext of "Finish What You Start". Unfortunately, many employees are in no position to argue with their boss as they fear getting fired.

Another symptom of weak or nonpresent unions, I guess.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Also,creating a labor movement to force the bourgeois government to pass a six hour work day law would require massive amounts of class consciousness on the part of the proletariat; consciousness which they currently do not have.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i think hours per-week should be something to measure things by. 4x10 5x8

[Die Neue Zeit]

Reading about the history of the U.S. labor movement has shown me many examples of workers fighting for an 8-hour day when they were made to work 10 or 12 hours at a time. Now decades after the 8-hour day has been made law, why is no one fighting for an even shorter day of, say, 6 hours? Is it simply because unions have become so weak?

That's one reason, but what's more important: a six-hour workday or a thirty-two-hour workweek?

[Winkers Fons]

Like it has been said, we need to get the public back to accepting past gains as normal before we make any more advances. The current debate isn't over whether or not we should increase benefits to workers but over how much we should roll them back. Increasing benefits to workers simply isn't on the mainstream political agenda now.

[Veovis]

Like it has been said, we need to get the public back to accepting past gains as normal before we make any more advances. The current debate isn't over whether or not we should increase benefits to workers but over how much we should roll them back. Increasing benefits to workers simply isn't on the mainstream political agenda now.

Regarding this, I was absolutely floored by how radicalized the working class in this country was during the early part of last century. I used to think that the U.S. was always a bulwark of reaction. How did we get to be this way?

[citizen of industry]

In times of economic gain, unions fight to increase the worker's share. In times of economic decline, unions fight to prevent cuts in wages, lay-offs, etc. We are in a period of union defensive.

[Thirsty Crow]

In times of economic gain, unions fight to increase the worker's share. In times of economic decline, unions fight to prevent cuts in wages, lay-offs, etc. We are in a period of union defensive.
We've been in a period of defensive for what, more than 3 decades now, isn't that the case?
And isn't it strange that this schema of booms-and-decline, when applied as you did with regard to the labour movement, cannot really explain the long downturn, especially concerning what we might call the semblances of "healthy growth" in the 90s, when the emerging picture was still one of purely defensive struggles (I think it's also safe to assume that a 6hr working day was a fantasy in those times)?

I think people need to get their shit together and realize that there simply isn't a realistic possibility of a massive reform movement which would at the same time fight for a universal shortening of the working day and for policies of full employment. The former is completely worthless without the latter, especially concerning the so called precarious labourers, who could easily (and indeed they do) join the ranks of the permanently unemployed.

I would be interested in reading just how would such an important change for capital be realized.

[citizen of industry]

We've been in a period of defensive for what, more than 3 decades now, isn't that the case?
And isn't it strange that this schema of booms-and-decline, when applied as you did with regard to the labour movement, cannot really explain the long downturn, especially concerning what we might call the semblances of "healthy growth" in the 90s, when the emerging picture was still one of purely defensive struggles (I think it's also safe to assume that a 6hr working day was a fantasy in those times)?

I think people need to get their shit together and realize that there simply isn't a realistic possibility of a massive reform movement which would at the same time fight for a universal shortening of the working day and for policies of full employment. The former is completely worthless without the latter, especially concerning the so called precarious labourers, who could easily (and indeed they do) join the ranks of the permanently unemployed.

I would be interested in reading just how would such an important change for capital be realized.

Hence the reason unions need to take part in political struggles and stop aligning themselves with the dems or purely focus on economic, i.e; collective bargaining contracts. Just a fact of life. Look at strikes during "boom" cycles vs. those in "bust" cycles. Wage increases vs. cuts.

A 6 hour day is a pipe dream that is never going to be realized in a capitalist economy. The 8 hour day is already being rolled back and so called precarious laborers are working more than full time hours with no job security or benefits.

[Catma]

Wherever possible, employers are eliminating full time jobs as well.

If and when we ever get a chance to push back, I think we should focus on adding a day to the weekend rather than removing hours from the day. It's more efficient considering transportation and it allows people more time to do stuff: a full day off is better than 2 hours off on a workday.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hence the reason unions need to take part in political struggles and stop aligning themselves with the dems or purely focus on economic, i.e; collective bargaining contracts. Just a fact of life. Look at strikes during "boom" cycles vs. those in "bust" cycles. Wage increases vs. cuts.

A 6 hour day is a pipe dream that is never going to be realized in a capitalist economy. The 8 hour day is already being rolled back and so called precarious laborers are working more than full time hours with no job security or benefits.

The first part is good, but why rush to hasty conclusions with the second part?

[Lanky Wanker]

We can't fight for six hour workdays until we begin to enforce eight hour workdays. A lot of companies decide to ignore the eight hour work day rules, and often force employees to stick around for an added hour or two. My mom is supposed to finish work at 4:30 pm, but her boss often makes her work til 5 or 6 under the pretext of "Finish What You Start". Unfortunately, many employees are in no position to argue with their boss as they fear getting fired.

My mum's boss is fairly nice (considering he is a boss), but he does the same. He doesn't do the "finish what you start" thing, but randomly gives her an extra hour's worth of work to do as she's getting ready to leave sometimes. Then there's the extra work to be done which means skipping her lunch break...

[Tovarisch]

My mum's boss is fairly nice (considering he is a boss), but he does the same. He doesn't do the "finish what you start" thing, but randomly gives her an extra hour's worth of work to do as she's getting ready to leave sometimes. Then there's the extra work to be done which means skipping her lunch break...
Agree, the eight hour work day law is a joke. I'm pretty sure 99% of bosses ignore the law, because NOBODY I know in real life works just eight hours. It's even worse for Mexican immigrants, as many immigrants I know work even more, sometimes as much as 12-14 hours a day

I think they should start handling out heavy fines for companies who force people to overwork, because it is ridiculous how much these laws are broken

[Veovis]

Agree, the eight hour work day law is a joke. I'm pretty sure 99% of bosses ignore the law, because NOBODY I know in real life works just eight hours. It's even worse for Mexican immigrants, as many immigrants I know work even more, sometimes as much as 12-14 hours a day

I think they should start handling out heavy fines for companies who force people to overwork, because it is ridiculous how much these laws are broken

I for one stay for 8.5 hours because our lunch isn't paid. Does that count?

[NewLeft]

I used to work 10 hours a day.. The job was not unionized, and I never got paid fully. I filled a complaint, but no fuck was given.

I agree with the post above, we should get a 6 hour workday, but we need to make sure it's enforced.

[Thirsty Crow]

The first part is good, but why rush to hasty conclusions with the second part?
Becuase a labour movement as powerful as to enforce the shortening of the workday and full employment policies would in fact be hindered by reformism, and would preserve the capitalist social order if it didn't go beyond that - and smash the bourgeois state?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't get the logic. Such strength doesn't necessarily translate to support for maximalist schemes.

[citizen of industry]

I don't get the logic. Such strength doesn't necessarily translate to support for maximalist schemes.

Actually, there are calls here for shortening of the workweek to 4 days, and also a trend towards "flex-time" schedules, shifts from 6 to 8 hours. But here's the kicker - they don't come with the same pay. You make 20% less in wages, thus forcing people to take on a second job, and end up working more than full time, without the benefits and job security. Or just living above the poverty line on such scanty hours. It is the corporations calling for reduced hours and more "flexible" workers.

Unionization rates are low. Some trades, like port workers, public transportation, education, utilities, you can't outsource. These trades are still highly unionized. Manufacturing and industry - outsourced. Leaving a smattering of part-time, flex-time, service industries and office work, largely un-unionized. Unionization rates are low. Union gains are being rolled back and the labor movement is under attack. There is no militant mass-movement to call for a 6 hour workday with no loss in pay and able to enforce it with general strikes. Tends to point towards the political arena and so-called "maximalist" schemes. Unless you are optimistic about seeing rapid increases in unionization rates in unorganized sectors.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, since you're writing now about unionization instead of the workweek, this article and the public policy comments below should be informative for you:

http://labornotes.org/blogs/2011/12/no-strike-clauses-hold-back-unions

[citizen of industry]

Well, since you're writing now about unionization instead of the workweek, this article and the public policy comments below should be informative for you:

http://labornotes.org/blogs/2011/12/no-strike-clauses-hold-back-unions


I'm familiar with the article, and the clauses. Who do you suppose won the 8 hour day in the first place? Unionized workers. At the time, many of them did not have the right to strike either, and they won first the 12, and then the 8 hour day in the face of violence and repression.

General strikes are "illegal." And yet, they happen all over the globe. A clause doesn't mean anything during a mass strike. It didn't hold back longshoreman after the Iraq invasion, and it didn't stop New York transport workers.

[Klaatu]

A few comrades here have mentioned that unions have become weaker in the past 30 years... That is true. Here is one reason why:
union turncoats. These are union members that vote for the opposing political party (opposing unions that is) because they see what they consider to be a bigger issue. For example: one of my co-workers said that he "always votes for the pro-life candidate." Well that candidate is going to crush unions. But that union voter does not care (in fact he thinks that cannot happen) How naïve is that?

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Unions have been a lot weaker, in the US at least, especially since the days of that bastard Reagan.

[Tovarisch]

Unions have been a lot weaker, in the US at least, especially since the days of that bastard Reagan.
It took 30 years for democrats to bring America out of depression and segregation, but it only took 10 years for Republicans to screw it all up again

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm familiar with the article, and the clauses.

Did you read the discussions below, though? There were informative public policy criticisms of the article for its failure to connect the dots re. collective bargaining.

[citizen of industry]

Did you read the discussions below, though? There were informative public policy criticisms of the article for its failure to connect the dots re. collective bargaining.

Nothing wrong with collective bargaining. If the union is weak the employer doesn't grant concessions. If the union has the threat of strike perhaps the employer grants concessions. Nothing wrong with improving workplace conditions. If collective bargaining results in a wage increase, a safer workplace, more job security, it's a good thing. And successful bargaining helps grow the union. Agreeing to a no-strike clause is stupid, that's taking away the most powerful tool a union has. But even then, there are still ways of taking direct action, e.g; work-to-rule.

But most of the criticism is because unions aren't taking part in political strikes. Well, that is, and has always been illegal. It has nothing to do with no-strike clauses. And it hasn't stopped unions from striking politically. The union gets a fine. For a big union, a $60,000 fine is a drop in the cup. But the socialist left is splintered and marginal, the unions are smaller than they were in the past. There isn't a militant, class-conscious labor movement. If there was, such clauses would be meaningless.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It was said there in the article and/or discussions that collective bargaining representation itself is the problem. Guess who, in the interests of non-unionized workers, posted the suggestion that it become a state function? ;)

[ArrowLance]

Unionization rates are low. Some trades, like port workers, public transportation, education, utilities, you can't outsource. These trades are still highly unionized. Manufacturing and industry - outsourced. Leaving a smattering of part-time, flex-time, service industries and office work, largely un-unionized. Unionization rates are low. Union gains are being rolled back and the labor movement is under attack. There is no militant mass-movement to call for a 6 hour workday with no loss in pay and able to enforce it with general strikes. Tends to point towards the political arena and so-called "maximalist" schemes. Unless you are optimistic about seeing rapid increases in unionization rates in unorganized sectors.

A lot of these jobs have federal restrictions on strikes and what their unions can do, in the united states, I've noticed.

[citizen of industry]

A lot of these jobs have federal restrictions on strikes and what their unions can do, in the united states, I've noticed.

It's like that in a lot of countries, but such restrictions haven't stopped public workers from striking despite it, in many cases winning the right to strike by striking. And there are countless examples of effective slowdowns, work-to-rules and sick-ins by public workers who are legally prohibited from strikes. Random example: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/148237

[Luís Henrique]

One difficulty is pretty straightforward: it would be materially difficult for people to make two eight-hour shifts, but avoiding people doing two six-hour shifts a day would require much more law enforcement efforts than it is likely a bourgeois State would be able or willing to do.

But yes, the struggle for a shorter work day should be central to any socialist strategy.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Even in a period when the main problem for a very significant part of the proletariat is not working to many hours a week but not enough?

Perhaps the reason workers aren't gathering around such a slogan is because we aren't living in the 19th century anymore?

In specific situations, workers indeed may struggle for demands for a shorter work-day although I don't imagine there being a struggle with a demand for a 6-hour work day specifically. It simply isn't an all inclusive class demand as it used to be.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One difficulty is pretty straightforward: it would be materially difficult for people to make two eight-hour shifts, but avoiding people doing two six-hour shifts a day would require much more law enforcement efforts than it is likely a bourgeois State would be able or willing to do.

But yes, the struggle for a shorter work day should be central to any socialist strategy.

Luís Henrique

That's under the premise that the bourgeois polity's functions can't possibly include simply hiring everyone and contracting labour out to the private sector like an employment placement agency.

Nonetheless, thanks for providing indirect support to the 32-hour workweek side.

[citizen of industry]

Nonetheless, thanks for providing indirect support to the 32-hour workweek side.

IMO, A thirty-two hour workweek with no loss in pay and full employment for all is an excellent transitional demand for a socialist party. But it is a revolutionary demand, not a reform that is realizable in a capitalist economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I guess that last part is where we'll have to differ. ;)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

IMO, A thirty-two hour workweek with no loss in pay and full employment for all is an excellent transitional demand for a socialist party. But it is a revolutionary demand, not a reform that is realizable in a capitalist economy.

IIRC France has/had 35 hour week for some sectors and jobs - and frankly, it would be possible under capitalism in the strictest sense - i.e. it would not make capitalism stop functioning or make it break, desirable as though that might be - that the bourgeoisie would not like it and work hard against it is another matter. The Swedish Left Party - which is social-democratic - has been pretty fervent about campaigning for a six-hour day for quite some time.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I think its important to be clear that in the demand of 6 hour working day we still want the same pay as for 8 hours, and that the 'left overs' of hours is meant to be shared to others. Not to increase productivity a.k.a. more work in less time.

I also want to recomend the book "The society of labor: How labor survived technology" by: Roland Paulsen.



Roland Paulsen’s latest publications include the book Arbetssamhället: Hur arbetet överlevde teknologin (http://webbshop.gleerups.se/se/hogskola/samhallsvetenskap/hogskola/samhallsvetenskap/arbetssamhallet_-_hur_arbetet_overlevde_teknologin.ecp?groupdetail= true&PositionId=15&cat_id=1372) (The society of labor: How labor survived technology) in which he addresses issues concerning the changing meaning of labor in a society where productivity is continually increasing. Mainly due to technological development, the need for labor has never been smaller than it is today. Yet we are working more than what earlier generations have done during most of human history. This is because labor, and wage labor in particular, has become an end in itself rather than the means for producing material wealth. In this book, Roland Paulsen offers an analysis of how the ideology of labor is emptying work of substance and value.

[GatesofLenin]

Interesting thread topic and one that won't be possible until the masses start to force corporations to put workers rights first and profits last. The idea of ever-growing profits by having workers work more and for less money is a big incentive to those greedy bastards on top. Also notice how the Western-world media keeps jabbing at French workers: I can't go a day without hearing how lazy they are, they'll go on strike for the littlest things, etc....
Well guess what, the workers of France have the right idea. We need to introduce country-wide strikes in the West and see how long the country can run.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think its important to be clear that in the demand of 6 hour working day we still want the same pay as for 8 hours, and that the 'left overs' of hours is meant to be shared to others. Not to increase productivity a.k.a. more work in less time.

I also want to recomend the book "The society of labor: How labor survived technology" by: Roland Paulsen.

Slogans don't do much good. It's a mouthful, but I'm for the ecological reduction of the normal workweek even for working multiple jobs – including time for workplace democracy, workers’ self-management, broader industrial democracy, etc. through workplace committees and assemblies – to a participatory-democratic maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits but with further reductions corresponding to increased labour productivity, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over the normal workweek and over 8 hours a day, the prohibition of compulsory overtime, and the provision of one hour off with pay for every two hours of overtime

[blake 3:17]

I don`t often hear the Left (or the Leftish) pushing for a reduced working week or full employment. I think they need to be central demands. Over time should be banned except for exceptional circumstances.

The Auto and Steel Workers unions have been poor on it -- many members basically get addicted to overtime, while newer hires doing the same work make less and have more precarious positions.

A union staffer I know who deals with mass lay offs and plant closures has told me awful stories about members working 60+ hours a week, making big money at it, and then getting the sack.

Anybody here know the unemployment number that is considered the best by the business class? I believe 5% is considered 0% in many statistics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don`t often hear the Left (or the Leftish) pushing for a reduced working week or full employment. I think they need to be central demands. Over time should be banned except for exceptional circumstances.

Indeed, although I think you're too harsh on the overtime question.

Right now time-and-a-half leaves too many incentives for employer abuse of OT. It should be double or more to reduce these incentives. There are more times than "exceptional" times when OT is in fact necessary.


The Auto and Steel Workers unions have been poor on it -- many members basically get addicted to overtime, while newer hires doing the same work make less and have more precarious positions.

I didn't consider the OT divide between more tenured employees and newer hires. Thanks for the New Year input, comrade!

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

greed doesnt allow it

and besides, an 6 hour work day is too short, i would be satisfied with a 7 hour work day

[Veovis]

Interesting thread topic and one that won't be possible until the masses start to force corporations to put workers rights first and profits last.

And that, in turn, will never be possible until the masses take over the corporations and run them for themselves.

[blake 3:17]

Indeed, although I think you're too harsh on the overtime question.

Right now time-and-a-half leaves too many incentives for employer abuse of OT. It should be double or more to reduce these incentives. There are more times than "exceptional" times when OT is in fact necessary.

Maybe I'm too harsh, but maybe not. I tend to think it should just be banned. Maybe that's not the answer, it may depend on the situation. What would be non-exceptional times?


I didn't consider the OT divide between more tenured employees and newer hires. It is a huge issue within many forms of industrial work. Along side it in other kinds of work are types of bonuses that get put into collective agreements, almost always to the advantage to those with the most seniority. I hesitate to use the word "corruption", but a great deal of irrational practices happen within certain jobs within the broad public sector.

Folks get dependent on OT pay, or per diems, or travel expenses.

On an interesting side note, one of the most sought after jobs in the auto plants are cleaning jobs, which pay less, but are also less alienated.

Happy New Year!

[Sixiang]

We can't fight for six hour workdays until we begin to enforce eight hour workdays. A lot of companies decide to ignore the eight hour work day rules, and often force employees to stick around for an added hour or two. My mom is supposed to finish work at 4:30 pm, but her boss often makes her work til 5 or 6 under the pretext of "Finish What You Start". Unfortunately, many employees are in no position to argue with their boss as they fear getting fired.
Yup. Same story with my family and work experience. My dad works any overtime he can get so he can get more money into the family to pay off all the bills to support our living style. My mother is paid a salary and sometimes works close to 60 or 70 hours a week, seven days a week. And they don't care if she asks for a raise because they basically say "you wanted to work out of the house so bad, if you don't like it, you can come back to the office." I certainly worked 9 and 10 hour days before at my minimum-wage restaurant job. Some of my co-workers did 12 hour, and even 14 or 15 hour days (open to close).


Regarding this, I was absolutely floored by how radicalized the working class in this country was during the early part of last century. I used to think that the U.S. was always a bulwark of reaction. How did we get to be this way?
Lots of reasons. An absolutely wonderful leftist approach to U.S. history that focuses quite a bit on the U.S. labor movement is Give Me Liberty!, by Eric Foner. I recommend reading it. It's a fascinating book.

But anyways, a lot of it has to do with the U.S. becoming a major imperialist nation and outsourcing many industrial jobs to poorer nations, turning the U.S. labor force into a largely service-based, "post-industrial" workforce. And also the absorbing of the U.S. labor movement by the Democratic Party has done a lot to fight off radicals in the movement. The CIO was formed in 1935 and, unlike the AFL, contained many communists in its ranks and leading positions. They supported FDR and the New Deal legislation. However, in 1947, The Taft Hartley Act was passed, which forced labor union members to pledge that they were not communist. So, the CIO purged its ranks of communist members to meet the Democrats' demands. Also, this was when the CPUSA decided to back Henry Wallace's Progressive Party campaign for president in 1948. The AFL and CIO joined forces to create one big union in 1955. The AFL was always firmly anti-communist and supported U.S. imperialist efforts and the FDR and Truman administrations. Also, the revival of conservatism and the power that Republicans have been given in the past 30 years hasn't helped.


My mum's boss is fairly nice (considering he is a boss), but he does the same. He doesn't do the "finish what you start" thing, but randomly gives her an extra hour's worth of work to do as she's getting ready to leave sometimes. Then there's the extra work to be done which means skipping her lunch break...
Same with my mom. My mom actually goes out to lunch with her boss and some of her co-workers and other bosses every couple of months. But her boss will just dump all this extra work on my mom because my mom is the only one who won't complain because she wanted to work out of the house so bad.


Agree, the eight hour work day law is a joke. I'm pretty sure 99% of bosses ignore the law, because NOBODY I know in real life works just eight hours. It's even worse for Mexican immigrants, as many immigrants I know work even more, sometimes as much as 12-14 hours a day

I think they should start handling out heavy fines for companies who force people to overwork, because it is ridiculous how much these laws are broken
There is currently no legislation in action by the U.S. federal government declaring the 8-hour work day the legal workday. So there is nothing to enforce or break. As a resident of Michigan, I can tell you that there is no law saying that the Michigan legal workday is 8 hours. The only real labor law that is enforced, from what I can tell, is that minors need a 30-minute meal break after 6 hours of work. There isn't even any laws about a 15 minute break for adults after any hours of work. I remember working a 10 hour shift with no break. The bosses don't care if you're hungry or tired. And as far as overtime, you only got overtime from working more than 40 hours in a week. The amount you work single day doesn't matter at all. That's why so many managers will try to work around it, making a bunch of employees work close to 40, but never over that.


A few comrades here have mentioned that unions have become weaker in the past 30 years... That is true. Here is one reason why:
union turncoats. These are union members that vote for the opposing political party (opposing unions that is) because they see what they consider to be a bigger issue. For example: one of my co-workers said that he "always votes for the pro-life candidate." Well that candidate is going to crush unions. But that union voter does not care (in fact he thinks that cannot happen) How naïve is that?
Yeah, I've read about that sort of trend. Actually, I recently read that 1/3 of all U.S. union workers vote for the Republican Party. How hilarious is that? I tell my Republican-voting friends and family that they are voting against his interests by voting for anti-union, anti-worker, pro-corporation politicians and their parties. For my family, they don't care about that at all, they vote simply because of abortion and same-sex couple rights. My family will never vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate. It's sad. And I think a lot of Americans don't know about the immense struggles that their ancestors went through for decades to win basic labor and union rights and concessions. So we take for granted what they achieved and don't notice when the Republicans cut back on those things.

I think this quote from Republican President Dwight Eisenhower is interesting and funny: http://medic343.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/i-like-ike.jpg?w=480&h=320

[blake 3:17]

Thanks siren bang for the excellent post!


For my family, they don't care about that at all, they vote simply because of abortion and same-sex couple rights. My family will never vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate.

So those are values that are more important to them.

I've voted NDP, Canada's social democratic party, about 90% of the time, but have also voted Green, spoiled my ballot, and abstained.

[GatesofLenin]

And that, in turn, will never be possible until the masses take over the corporations and run them for themselves.

Turn the current system upside-down! :thumbup:

[Sixiang]

Thanks siren bang for the excellent post!



So those are values that are more important to them.

I've voted NDP, Canada's social democratic party, about 90% of the time, but have also voted Green, spoiled my ballot, and abstained.

No problem. :p

Right, and that's what I would expect from devout Roman Catholics. It's just kind of sad considering their son is gay and it isn't until things have really gotten shitty that my parents have been recently wondering out loud "Maybe voting for those guys wasn't such a good idea after all. Their economic policies aren't helping us."

[blake 3:17]

This is coming from a reformist Keynesian perspective. I think we should be all for it.

From the Guardian:

Cut the working week to a maximum of 20 hours, urge top economists
Job sharing and increased leisure are the answer to rising unemployment, claims thinktank
Heather Stewart
The Observer, Sunday 8 January 2012
larger | smaller

Unemployment levels are rising within both Britain and the eurozone. Photograph: Mark Richardson/Alamy
Britain is struggling to shrug off the credit crisis; overworked parents are stricken with guilt about barely seeing their offspring; carbon dioxide is belching into the atmosphere from our power-hungry offices and homes. In London on Wednesday, experts will gather to offer a novel solution to all of these problems at once: a shorter working week.

A thinktank, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), which has organised the event with the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics, argues that if everyone worked fewer hours – say, 20 or so a week – there would be more jobs to go round, employees could spend more time with their families and energy-hungry excess consumption would be curbed. Anna Coote, of NEF, said: "There's a great disequilibrium between people who have got too much paid work, and those who have got too little or none."

She argued that we need to think again about what constitutes economic success, and whether aiming to boost Britain's GDP growth rate should be the government's first priority: "Are we just living to work, and working to earn, and earning to consume? There's no evidence that if you have shorter working hours as the norm, you have a less successful economy: quite the reverse." She cited Germany and the Netherlands.

Robert Skidelsky, the Keynesian economist, who has written a forthcoming book with his son, Edward, entitled How Much Is Enough?, argued that rapid technological change means that even when the downturn is over there will be fewer jobs to go around in the years ahead. "The civilised answer should be work-sharing. The government should legislate a maximum working week."

Many economists once believed that as technology improved, boosting workers' productivity, people would choose to bank these benefits by working fewer hours and enjoying more leisure. Instead, working hours have got longer in many countries. The UK has the longest working week of any major European economy.

Skidelsky says politicians and economists need to think less about the pursuit of growth. "The real question for welfare today is not the GDP growth rate, but how income is divided."

Parents of young children already have the right to request flexible working, but the NEF would like to see job-sharing and alternative work patterns become much more widespread, and is calling on the government to make flexible working a default right for everyone.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank

[citizen of industry]

This is coming from a reformist Keynesian perspective. I think we should be all for it.

From the Guardian:

Cut the working week to a maximum of 20 hours, urge top economists
Job sharing and increased leisure are the answer to rising unemployment, claims thinktank
Heather Stewart
The Observer, Sunday 8 January 2012
larger | smaller

Unemployment levels are rising within both Britain and the eurozone. Photograph: Mark Richardson/Alamy
Britain is struggling to shrug off the credit crisis; overworked parents are stricken with guilt about barely seeing their offspring; carbon dioxide is belching into the atmosphere from our power-hungry offices and homes. In London on Wednesday, experts will gather to offer a novel solution to all of these problems at once: a shorter working week.

A thinktank, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), which has organised the event with the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics, argues that if everyone worked fewer hours – say, 20 or so a week – there would be more jobs to go round, employees could spend more time with their families and energy-hungry excess consumption would be curbed. Anna Coote, of NEF, said: "There's a great disequilibrium between people who have got too much paid work, and those who have got too little or none."

She argued that we need to think again about what constitutes economic success, and whether aiming to boost Britain's GDP growth rate should be the government's first priority: "Are we just living to work, and working to earn, and earning to consume? There's no evidence that if you have shorter working hours as the norm, you have a less successful economy: quite the reverse." She cited Germany and the Netherlands.

Robert Skidelsky, the Keynesian economist, who has written a forthcoming book with his son, Edward, entitled How Much Is Enough?, argued that rapid technological change means that even when the downturn is over there will be fewer jobs to go around in the years ahead. "The civilised answer should be work-sharing. The government should legislate a maximum working week."

Many economists once believed that as technology improved, boosting workers' productivity, people would choose to bank these benefits by working fewer hours and enjoying more leisure. Instead, working hours have got longer in many countries. The UK has the longest working week of any major European economy.

Skidelsky says politicians and economists need to think less about the pursuit of growth. "The real question for welfare today is not the GDP growth rate, but how income is divided."

Parents of young children already have the right to request flexible working, but the NEF would like to see job-sharing and alternative work patterns become much more widespread, and is calling on the government to make flexible working a default right for everyone.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-working-week-urges-thinktank

The problem with this proposal, as I see it, is that it a bourgeois proposal that aims to cut the workweek down to 20 hours without a subsequent sliding increase in wages. Meaning that it would create a flexible workforce of part-time workers who presumably don't work enough hours at any one company to qualify for benefits. I think the end result would be that people would be working two, twenty hour jobs just to make ends meet, with no job security or benefits. While the corporation could get away with paying crap wages and no benefits to a flexible workforce which has no job-security.

The article accurately points out though, as Marx did a hundred-fifty years ago, that under capitalism technological improvements result in people working longer hours, instead of reaping the benefits of technology.

[aty]

The Left Party in Sweden have just started this fight again now after their last congress!
Many unions in Sweden also fight for 6 hours and the Green Party. Now we only need the social democrats to take this question seriously and we can get a parliamentary majority for this. Then the unions can start negotiate...

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with this proposal, as I see it, is that it a bourgeois proposal that aims to cut the workweek down to 20 hours without a subsequent sliding increase in wages.

Even Keynes suggested that increased productivity would lead to both reduced hours and higher real wages. That's why the "New" Economics Foundation is just more Bastard Keynesianism.

[blake 3:17]

The article accurately points out though, as Marx did a hundred-fifty years ago, that under capitalism technological improvements result in people working longer hours, instead of reaping the benefits of technology.

Well it results in some people working longer and longer days, while others are excluded from the work force.

[Patchd]

Why fight for a 6 hour day when we want to abolish work?

[blake 3:17]

Why fight for a 6 hour day when we want to abolish work?

Where will you get food from? Or water? Will you grow your own Internet?

I guess you could try lying in a field and wait for some spinach to appear in your mouth at just the right time...

[X5N]

Because why fight for a six hour work day when you can fight for worker's self-management?

(Patchd: I wasn't trying to parody your comment.)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here you go, just came over the feed:

The Case for a 21-Hour Work Week

To save the world -- or really to even just make our personal lives better -- we will need to work less.

Time, like work, has become commodified, a recent legacy of industrial capitalism, where a controlled, 40-hour week in factories was necessary. Our behavior is totally out of step with human priorities and today’s economy. To lay the foundations for a "steady-state" economy -- one that can continue running sustainably forever -- a recent paper argues that it’s time for advanced developed countries transition to a normal 21-hour work week.

This does not mean a mandatory work week or leisure-time police. People can choose to work as long, or short, as they please. It’s more about resetting social and political norms. That is, the day when 1,092 hours of paid work per year becomes the "standard that is generally expected by government, employers, trade unions, employees, and everyone else."

The New Economics Foundation (NEF) says there is nothing natural or inevitable about what’s considered a "normal" 40-hour work week today. In its wake, many people are caught in a vicious cycle of work and consumption. They live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume things. Missing from that equation is an important fact that researchers have discovered about most material consumption in wealthy societies: so much of the pleasure and satisfaction we gain from buying is temporary, ephemeral, and mostly just relative to those around us (who strive to consume still more, in a self-perpetuating spiral).

The NEF argues we need to achieve truly happy lives, we need to challenge social norms and reset the industrial clock ticking in our heads. It sees the 21-hour week as integral to this for two reasons: it will redistribute paid work, offering the hope of a more equal society (right now too many are overworked, or underemployed). At the same time, it would give us all time for the things we value but rarely have time to do well such as care for our family, travel, read or continue learning (as opposed to feeding consumerism).

Not to mention, it may be the only way a modern global society won’t overwhelm the earth’s resources. Creating EU-level living standards for the entire world by 2050 would require a six-fold increase in the size of the global economy, with potentially devastating consequences. Instead of growing the economy, maybe we need to recalibrate society to make everyone happier and successful with less.

"The proposed shift towards 21 hours must be seen in terms of a broad, incremental transition to social, economic, and environmental sustainability," says the NEF in its report.

The challenges are great, none more so than figuring out how to make most of society be able to live on half of their current income. And no doubt, many will seize on this as socialism or worse. Many will object to being told that 21 hours is normal, or 80 hours is too much. But consider what John Maynard Keynes, (whose theories underpin much of the global response to the financial crises), said in 1930 about the goal of future societies. Keynes thought that by the start of the 21st century, we would work only 15 to 21 hours a week, and we would instead focus on "how to use freedom from pressing economic cares." As NEF writes: "Keynes was wrong in his forecast, but not at all wrong, it seems to us, to envisage a very different way of using time."

Michael Coren covers science, economics and the environment. He is the cofounder of the multimedia production studio + newsroom MajorPlanet Studios.

Original report: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/21-hours