An article in yesterday's (1/28) WSJ says labor is divided over the GOP proposal to allow employers to offer workers comptime instead of overtime pay. I understand that there are legitimate concerns about employers forcing workers to take comptime rather than paying them overtime, but assuming reasonable safeguards (is this the catch?) I should think labor would be all for the option of reducing workloads (which at least in principle, even if negligibly, would increase jobs), especially given the concern workers have for free time, family time, etc. In other words, though this may be a boon for capitalists, isn't it also in our interest as workers, doesn't it give workers more power over their lives, more space away from capitalist jobs? Doesn't it suggest more interest in social relationships and activities and less interest in consumption (because less income)? Doesn't it even provide a small opening for non-capitalist productive activities with the time freed up? I know what I've written is very sketchy, but I believe it's also old hat for most of us, so I hope folks can fill in. There's a long and well-known literature on free time and leisure. The question is then, what is labor's objection really? In other words, shouldn't we push labor to get behind this proposal full force in order to shape it in accord with workers' needs, rather than just saying "no?" Interested in others' opinions, Blair ********************************************************************* Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." *********************************************************************
