Marvin Gandall wrote: > However, as the subject of "shorter hours at no loss > in pay" is mostly > academic nowadays anyways, it's hardly worth beating > to death, so I'm done.
If by "mostly academic" you mean a subject of historical research more than an active slogan of labour unions, I would have to agree. As an activist for reduced working time, however, I often find that the slogan is raised as an _objection_ (from "both sides") to working shorter hours. Leftists claim that workers "can't afford" shorter hours because they can't afford to lose any pay. They fall back on the old slogan. Business claims that they "can't afford" shorter hours because of fixed costs and the demand for no cut in pay. Funny, none of these folks can "afford" to look for a solution but everyone can afford the status quo of high social, medical and personal costs of long hours and high unemployment. Fortunately, the response from the general population is much more positive. The Sandwichman __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
