Marvin Gandall wrote: > Tom > manufactures his case by using the > weekly rate.
I wish that was true. Then I could just as easily unmanufacture it. When unions say no cut in pay, they mean no cut in weekly (or annual) pay not no cut in hourly wage. I'm not making it up. Honest. But see the following: > 1) No union would fight for a 20% reduction in hours > and a 20% pay increase > if it would result in a net LOSS in their members' > weekly take home pay - That's exactly what they (&I) mean by no cut in pay -- "a LOSS in their weekly take home pay." Although technically it's not a "loss" because they're earning a higher wage and working fewer hours. So what's this about the case I'm manufacturing? > Maybe Tom, who has > researched this area > extensively, can some provide examples of unions > which have triumphantly > done so, but I doubt he has found many. Well, yes, for example the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union negotiated several contracts which involved shorter hours without a fully compensating increase in hourly wages. I've got the CEP pamphlets and will post particulars when I get the chance. The thing is workers were often apprehensive before hand that the drop in income would effect them more than it does. But in reality they pay less taxes, their expenses go down and they find they really appreciate the extra time off. > 2) By the same token, no company would reward their > workers with an 20% pay > hike and a 20% decrease in their work time - and > then declare victory to > their shareholders and the Chamber of Commerce. Tom > might find some evidence > of company boards telling angry investors that this > did not really represent > a "shorter work week at no loss in pay", but I doubt > he would find many. I have to remind you, Marvin, that I said my example was not an _economic_ one. That is what I meant. Look, the precise percentages are just for the sake of easy illustration. A real world example wouldn't need to be so strikingly unlikely. > The shorter work week is not as complicated an issue > as Tom makes out. Hold on a minute. It wouldn't be complicated if people didn't imagine problems and solutions and fallacis that don't exist but they do and that's what makes it complicated. And yes companies are more receptive to short time working during a slump and it's in the context of a cutback. Unions SHOULD be fighting for shorter work time during the good times but they don't. The issue usually comes up for unions when layoffs are imminent or unemployment is rising. > If Tom is wondering why most unions don't embrace > reduced hours at reduced > pay, as he has advocated, the explanation lies here. That's why the issue is complicated, not why it's simple. ;-) Unions, employers and governments all have *positions* on shorter working time that are in some respect irrational and based on myths and miscalculations. It isn't showing greater sympathy to the interests of the workers to buy the union version of the myth. Look, not even the unions buy their own myth on shorter work time. The Sandwichman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
