Sean,
I haven't worked with how the numbers about the average workweek has
dropped -- i.e. the 33 hour average that you point out -- is created. But is
that average what the typical worker works? Or is it falling because the
reduction in manufacturing employment of people who worked forty hours has
resuted in the average going down? In other words, if you have people working
40 hours and an equal number working 20 hours, the average will be 30 hours.
But if the head count reduction comes mainly in the number working 40 hours,
the average will drop even though every employed worker is working the same as
before. Perhaps others can enlighten me on just what that drop to 33 hours
implies.
I don't expect pay to be mandated to be with no reduction as hours are
cut. But people will fight for their income. The outcome of the fight will
vary by industry and occupation --- but that is part of the shift to a new
future that Peter Hollings raises.
Keep your thoughts coming, and thanks for them.
Gene Coyle
On Mar 26, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Sean Andrews wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:44, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But there is a remedy for the glut of workers. Shorter working time. If we
>> adopt a four day week, 20 percent of the work-hours on offer in "standard
>> jobs" disappears. Supply drops, pay rises. Why won't Pen-l discuss this
>> beyond the sneer level?
>
> Well it only works as a solution if there is a mandated wages and
> benefits for those reduced hours. Earlier today, Jim Devine passed
> around a story mentioning that, at the moment, the average number of
> hours/week is 33. That's already almost equivalent to a four day work
> week. BUt most of those people are underemployed and would like to be
> working more so that they can actually "reproduce their labor power."
> the increase in employment, as the article mentioned, would likely
> just be to give those workers more hours rather than hiring a few
> other part timers to fill the new demand. Likewise, one of the main
> critiques of companies that offer benefits to full timers (like
> Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc.) in recent years is precisely that they
> would hire more part timers, i.e. more people at 20-30 hours/week, so
> that they didn't have to provide benefits. If the wages for a 32
> hour work week are 20% less than that of the 40 hour (and the benefits
> are 100% less, i.e. part timers don't get health care) then this is
> hardly a workable solution. I've heard it mentioned before so maybe I
> am misunderstanding the particularities, but there doesn't seem to be
> a clear way this would help the problem unless there is the enormous
> external variable of mandated living wages and benefits.
>
> s
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
