Marvin Gandall wrote: > In other words, they would opt > for the more shallow cut > in work time, unless they felt they could bridge the > gap through OT
That is true enough in today's way of thinking but it wasn't always thus. The old employers' complaint and justification for lower wages was that as soon as the workers made enough to live on they would quit. Little do most workers realize how much it costs them (in work related expenses, loss of leisure time, loss of future earning power) to make a little more income now. And rarely do unions try to educate their members about the costs and benefits of working a lot more for slightly more income versus working a lot less for slightly less income. It is the exceptions that highlights how rare this is: Julie White at the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union (Canada). The Canadian Auto Workers union produced some pamphlets on the issue. For a while, about eight years ago, the CLC formed an ad hoc committee on shorter working time but as far as I know they've gone moribund. The AFL-CIO when it was campaigning against the Republican slashing of the FLSA provisions emphasized the reliance of working families on the income they received from overtime work. Well, it's sad that it has come to people needing overtime pay to pay the bills but it is also "pathetic" in the derogatory sense of the term. > I fail to see how > this fails to meet the > criterion of a "shorter work week at no loss in pay" > than the existing 40 > hours at $10. 40 hours at $10 = $400 a week 37.5 hours at 10.67 = $400.12 a week 32 hours at $11.25 = $360 a week (a $40 a week "cut in pay") (or, using my proposed no cut in pay at the minimum wage benchmark: $32 hours at $12 = $384, a $16 dollar a week "cut". The Sandwichman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
