The 36-hour work week/3-day weekend

[beagle9]

I think the point is, do we really need consensus rule on something like this?

Not really, because the guilty should be ousted, and the innocent should keep on keeping on doing what they do best.

Guilty? What do you mean?

In the OP, he has this statement - "Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee."

The reduction in hours worked isn't really the big thing here, but the wages being stagnant for far to long for the amount of hours worked had become a real big problem, just as well it has resulted in a learned disrespect problem that had occurred over time as a result of it all.

These things can stem from many things, but I personally know of one that is connected to it, just as I bet you also know many that it is connected to also.

I guess we should understand then where each of us are coming in from right? I guess my perspective is based upon what I have actually seen go on at top levels way in the past, and then what has gone on in the field as a result of decisions that were made at those top levels in which rolled down hill sometimes in a very bad way. A trend was going on also in a lot of things, where as corrupt thinking began to creep into every facet of our societies and lives.

I may be biased in my thinking due to my scars of the past knowledge in which I had gained, yet not by my choosing, so forgive me if I have seen to much in life already.

 

[beagle9]

We could make Fridays a 4-hour day. Or, to be fair to commuters, make Thursdays and Fridays a 6-hour day. Or for certain types of highly-skilled, salaried workers for whom a shorter day may not be practical, make every other Friday an off day. All kinds of possibilities. All kinds of choices.

Benefits | Global Campaign for the 4 Hour Work-day

The 4 hour work day you linked to seems to be advocating 4 hour days all week long. so a total of 20 hours worked for the week. The only way to do that is to cut income in half or double the cost for businesses. (keep wages the same but work half as much = half wages. double wages and work half as much = company has to hire 2 people instead of 1 to get the same amount of work at double the wages.)

It doesn't even end there. Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.

When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours. So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.

So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.

And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?

Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.

The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.

 

[candycorn]

We've officially had the 40-hour week since the early part of the 20th century thanks to courageous and determined efforts of the labor movement during that era.

Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee. An increase in wages in proportion with productivity should help boost an argument for reducing the work week from the now standard 5-day week/8-hour day to 4-day week/9-hour day. Or we could just make Fridays a half-day. Or turn Thursdays and Fridays into 6-hour days with an adjusted wage increase.

Not sure of why the hostility to the self-evident truths pointed out in the OP. Equally not sure what the OP's thesis is.

So, from my point of view, I have never...or should I say seldom...had a job where I was constantly busy for 40 solid hours during a week. There is always down time to get some coffee, joke around/gossip with co-workers, call home, etc... I understand not everyone has been as fortunate as I am but I tend to think those people are the exception and not the rule.

So I think it is high time we consider alternate work schedules. I believe it's the 8X5 formula that keeps businesses from changing since the formula is a proven winner and a supervisor need not worry about who is there and who isn't. If it's M-F 8-5; Robin is at her desk or Jim is in the warehouse or Kathryn is in the lab. I certainly would be open to the idea of working 32-40 hours per week instead of the 40 I'm scheduled. At this point in my life, I have enough money and really do not need to get 40 hours to pay my bills.

Thank you Dave Ramsey.

I think many 30-40 somethings are in the same boat. I would like to head out to the coast twice a month instead of once a month or up to the mountains or go skiing over in Santa Fe or Taos.

 

[dblack]

Not really, because the guilty should be ousted, and the innocent should keep on keeping on doing what they do best.

Guilty? What do you mean?

In the OP, he has this statement - "Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee."

The reduction in hours worked isn't really the big thing here, but the wages being stagnant for far to long for the amount of hours worked had become a real big problem, just as well it has resulted in a learned disrespect problem that had occurred over time as a result of it all.

These things can stem from many things, but I personally know of one that is connected to it, just as I bet you also know many that it is connected to also.

I guess we should understand then where each of us are coming in from right? I guess my perspective is based upon what I have actually seen go on at top levels way in the past, and then what has gone on in the field as a result of decisions that were made at those top levels in which rolled down hill sometimes in a very bad way. A trend was going on also in a lot of things, where as corrupt thinking began to creep into every facet of our societies and lives.

I may be biased in my thinking due to my scars of the past knowledge in which I had gained, yet not by my choosing, so forgive me if I have seen to much in life already.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was merely questioning why there needs to be any kind of standardized work week. Maybe I'm missing the point of the OP, but it seemed to be arguing for laws regulating weekly hours, forcing conformity where it isn't necessary. It seems that such details should be between an employer and their employees. In other words, see my sig line -->

 

[beagle9]

Guilty? What do you mean?

In the OP, he has this statement - "Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee."

The reduction in hours worked isn't really the big thing here, but the wages being stagnant for far to long for the amount of hours worked had become a real big problem, just as well it has resulted in a learned disrespect problem that had occurred over time as a result of it all.

These things can stem from many things, but I personally know of one that is connected to it, just as I bet you also know many that it is connected to also.

I guess we should understand then where each of us are coming in from right? I guess my perspective is based upon what I have actually seen go on at top levels way in the past, and then what has gone on in the field as a result of decisions that were made at those top levels in which rolled down hill sometimes in a very bad way. A trend was going on also in a lot of things, where as corrupt thinking began to creep into every facet of our societies and lives.

I may be biased in my thinking due to my scars of the past knowledge in which I had gained, yet not by my choosing, so forgive me if I have seen to much in life already.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was merely questioning why there needs to be any kind of standardized work week. Maybe I'm missing the point of the OP, but it seemed to be arguing for laws regulating weekly hours, forcing conformity where it isn't necessary. It seems that such details should be between an employer and their employees. In other words, see my sig line -->

I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?

 

[dblack]

In the OP, he has this statement - "Advances in productivity haven't led to a substantial increase in wages nor reduction in hours worked for the average employee."

The reduction in hours worked isn't really the big thing here, but the wages being stagnant for far to long for the amount of hours worked had become a real big problem, just as well it has resulted in a learned disrespect problem that had occurred over time as a result of it all.

These things can stem from many things, but I personally know of one that is connected to it, just as I bet you also know many that it is connected to also.

I guess we should understand then where each of us are coming in from right? I guess my perspective is based upon what I have actually seen go on at top levels way in the past, and then what has gone on in the field as a result of decisions that were made at those top levels in which rolled down hill sometimes in a very bad way. A trend was going on also in a lot of things, where as corrupt thinking began to creep into every facet of our societies and lives.

I may be biased in my thinking due to my scars of the past knowledge in which I had gained, yet not by my choosing, so forgive me if I have seen to much in life already.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was merely questioning why there needs to be any kind of standardized work week. Maybe I'm missing the point of the OP, but it seemed to be arguing for laws regulating weekly hours, forcing conformity where it isn't necessary. It seems that such details should be between an employer and their employees. In other words, see my sig line -->

I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?

Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.

 

[EverCurious]

As far as working alternate hours, I'd suggest talking to your boss and see how he/she feels about it. Because of the SLFA mandates we end up overlapping shifts. For example, say we're open 7-7-7 that ends up being 84 hours a week total. We have to split up the days into two shifts dictated by 8h from either end (7a-4p and 10a-7p - w/hour lunch,) because most folks want a 40h week, we can usually scrape up a couple-few folks for a 32-36h/w and use them to fill in 'missed' shifts but we still end up overlapping them cause most won't take less than 32/h a week. Bottom line is that we end up overlapping employees quite often, regardless of if it's actually required to accomplish the job or not. Though on the plus side, this does help cover employee breaks, on the job texting, and employees just in general not being where they are needed when they are needed there. heh

So if you want less hours a week, or less hours a day with more days a week, and could be flexible with your scheduled times - it might be something your boss would appreciate since it could actually help them out too.


With an over 8h/d with OT to equal a 40h/w pay idea, there's a couple things you can run into. You can run into issues with corporate operations if the company/division policy is no OT - some division managers even get docked pay if they end up with "excessive" employee OT. (I believe corporate started it in an attempt to get division managers to hire more efficient workers, but I might be wrong.) I was also once told that in some industries both the employee & employer have to pay higher taxes on overtime. -- I am not sure if I believe that as I've never run into it in all the places I've worked, but I 'could' see some state/union/muni throwing it down on the books to protect workers from 'slave hours' or something like that.

That said, you had better be a damn good employee because you'd basically be doing 'less' for the employee - aka giving your employer 36 hours of work but making 40 hours a week pay. Plus in order for the math to work out for said pay, you end up with a pretty odd schedule like 2 10h days, 1 9h day, and 1 8h day. That might sound easy enough on paper, but try to fit that around my other employees schedules, who generally like consistency in 'their' work hours heh

 

[beagle9]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was merely questioning why there needs to be any kind of standardized work week. Maybe I'm missing the point of the OP, but it seemed to be arguing for laws regulating weekly hours, forcing conformity where it isn't necessary. It seems that such details should be between an employer and their employees. In other words, see my sig line -->

I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?

Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.

Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?

 

[dblack]

I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?

Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.

Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?

Fair is a matter of perspective and circumstance. Ultimately, it's an idividualj judgement

 

[beagle9]

Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.

Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?

Fair is a matter of perspective and circumstance. Ultimately, it's an idividualj judgement

And what rights are the individual afforded in the negotiations process again ? I bet there hasn't been an interview that afforded the worker the respect that he or she is deserved in a very long time, and this especially if negotiations are out of play somehow in an interview. The field has been controlled now for quite a long long time. The worker has been told just to be glad if they have a job, and if they are given a job by the employer then take it no matter what the circumstances are. This is supposed to stop the worker from thinking he or she has any chance at any kind of negotiations in an interview for a job, and if it doesn't then they are passed up for the next potential voiceless drone that is supposed to be considered an American worker, but only if he or she stays in line no matter what the situation is. It is true that they can just quit yes, and that they can find them something else of course, but it should also be true that people can boycott a bad employer wouldn't you say ? Hey fair is fair right ?

 

[EverCurious]

I think the OP is suggesting that since wages hadn't increased, then maybe the work week could change in order to get some relief in that way. Otherwise what he is advocating is a lesser work week than what we have for the most part in a 40 hr and/or above work week. He wants this because the wages haven't kept up with productivity and profits, so less time at work would help people feel as if their getting something, even if it isn't in the form of actual money in their pockets. Am I right maybe ?

Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.

Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?

Unions, as a matter of policy, fight to keep people hired regardless. There was a situation where one employee was chronically negligent in his position, the company couldn't fire him because of unions - even after the guys negligence killed another employee, a fellow union member. The oil company basically stuffed the 'offending' guy into a BS position (where he couldn't do any harm) and have to continue paying him even though the guy is useless to them as a company. -- Agreeably that's an exceptional case, but the point here is that the unions are not working for an individual worker himself per say, they are working for a general cause.

That said, I do not believe unions "started" the 40h work week. If I remember right it was more a universal call from employees in general who, for example, didn't want to work 10-5's and what have you, been around since the like 1800s if I remember. France even had a slogan: "8 hours work, 8 hours play, 8 hours sleep" because they felt that was the best division of the day (which works out to, you guessed it, 40 hours in the old standard M-F week.) Further on though, sometime in the 1930's the US gov. passed the SFLA to mandate OT for over 8h/day and 40h/week and businesses had no choice but to adapt to the new law.

Unions typically fight for things like work place safety, pay rate, and benefits on TOP of the 40h week because that was the cry for fairness in past generations. I'm not so sure they would be keen to attempt any alteration the 40h week standard because a) its what the employee wanted historically, and b) it's kind of dictated by the US gov and therefore rather non negotiable for an employer. I'm not too sure that unions would be to keen on taking up a voice for any schedule that involved mandatory OT as, at least in so much as the ones I've dealt with, they have historically fought against it. Though it's entirely possible that might just be specific to unions where I am because of our geographical location.

 

[Politico]

What is stopping Google from doing this on its own? Cut top executive salaries, boost the lower level employees and cut back to 20-30 hours a week and see. Or do they not practice what they preach


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which one of your grandmas basements have you been living in lol? Most of their jobs are part time.

 

[Mathbud1]

The 4 hour work day you linked to seems to be advocating 4 hour days all week long. so a total of 20 hours worked for the week. The only way to do that is to cut income in half or double the cost for businesses. (keep wages the same but work half as much = half wages. double wages and work half as much = company has to hire 2 people instead of 1 to get the same amount of work at double the wages.)

It doesn't even end there. Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.

When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours. So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.

So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.

And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?

Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.

The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.

You can't force that on all businesses though. How do you divide a 24 hour day into an even number of 10 hour shifts for companies that run 24/7?

 

[Slyhunter]

It doesn't even end there. Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.

When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours. So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.

So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.

And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?

Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.

The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.

You can't force that on all businesses though. How do you divide a 24 hour day into an even number of 10 hour shifts for companies that run 24/7?

I worked 12 on 12 off when I was in the army 3 day, 3 night, 3 days off a 9 day work week. Where there is a will there is a way.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You want a four day work week? Work four tens.
I loved it!! Three day weekends every four days is kick ass!!

That's a fact. I negotiated a 4/10 shift with my employer and neither of us have ever regretted that choice. I still have my 40 hr work week and three-day weekends. An added bonus: I work the shift of my choice (graves) and the days off I have allow me to hold my part-time teaching job!

 

[Mathbud1]

The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.

You can't force that on all businesses though. How do you divide a 24 hour day into an even number of 10 hour shifts for companies that run 24/7?

I worked 12 on 12 off when I was in the army 3 day, 3 night, 3 days off a 9 day work week. Where there is a will there is a way.

Which in essence means that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach that covers every possibility.

 

[beagle9]

Maybe. Which is all fine. My only issue with any of this would be dictating it as state policy. Employees and employers should be free to negotiate for whatever terms they can agree to.

Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?

Unions, as a matter of policy, fight to keep people hired regardless. There was a situation where one employee was chronically negligent in his position, the company couldn't fire him because of unions - even after the guys negligence killed another employee, a fellow union member. The oil company basically stuffed the 'offending' guy into a BS position (where he couldn't do any harm) and have to continue paying him even though the guy is useless to them as a company. -- Agreeably that's an exceptional case, but the point here is that the unions are not working for an individual worker himself per say, they are working for a general cause.

That said, I do not believe unions "started" the 40h work week. If I remember right it was more a universal call from employees in general who, for example, didn't want to work 10-5's and what have you, been around since the like 1800s if I remember. France even had a slogan: "8 hours work, 8 hours play, 8 hours sleep" because they felt that was the best division of the day (which works out to, you guessed it, 40 hours in the old standard M-F week.) Further on though, sometime in the 1930's the US gov. passed the SFLA to mandate OT for over 8h/day and 40h/week and businesses had no choice but to adapt to the new law.

Unions typically fight for things like work place safety, pay rate, and benefits on TOP of the 40h week because that was the cry for fairness in past generations. I'm not so sure they would be keen to attempt any alteration the 40h week standard because a) its what the employee wanted historically, and b) it's kind of dictated by the US gov and therefore rather non negotiable for an employer. I'm not too sure that unions would be to keen on taking up a voice for any schedule that involved mandatory OT as, at least in so much as the ones I've dealt with, they have historically fought against it. Though it's entirely possible that might just be specific to unions where I am because of our geographical location.

Replace the word Union in the embolded above with "Government", now what's the difference in the read ? There is none...

 

[beagle9]

It doesn't even end there. Most jobs are typical 9-to-5 jobs, because manage also doesn't want to work weekends.

When you say, well, we want to work some strange shift, that includes Saturday and Sunday, or includes odd hours during the day, the managers don't want to work those strange hours. So now the company has to hire additional managers to cover those weird hours.

So not only do you end up hiring more labor to cover the same work, but now you need additional management to cover the odd hours.

And then people complain that labor wages are not increasing with productivity?

Well yeah, some of the money that would have gone to labor wages, was diverted to administrative costs, because you wanted these wacky hours.

The oddest or should I say the even hours I would want to see happen the most, is the 10 hours a day for 4 days a week work week. I would love to see this schedule in play for most companies who would want to do this myself. I think that it is the greatest standard hours to work for a week, but that's just me because of a three day weekend involved every week. Nothing wrong with a 40 hour work week, just as long as people can get the proper break needed in between, and this for them and their families to get to know each other in between the weeks that are worked once again.

You can't force that on all businesses though. How do you divide a 24 hour day into an even number of 10 hour shifts for companies that run 24/7?

Easy - 10 hours a day for 4 days a week for one group of employee's who are full time, then the part timers shift comes in and finishes up the hours that are left (28) and finally the week.

 

[dblack]

Yes, but with so many variables that are out there, could it always be trusted that the employer will play fair with the employee's or the employee's with the employer in a one on one situation, and if not is this why Unions were created for the workers and also the employers in some and/or in many cases ? Once Unions were established for the workers and for the employers, isn't this where some great benefits and protections for all involved came from, like the 40 hour work week, safety in the work place, vacation time, breaks and etc. ?? Were the unions good for the employers also, I mean if the employer embraced the union ?

Fair is a matter of perspective and circumstance. Ultimately, it's an idividualj judgement

And what rights are the individual afforded in the negotiations process again ? I bet there hasn't been an interview that afforded the worker the respect that he or she is deserved in a very long time, and this especially if negotiations are out of play somehow in an interview. The field has been controlled now for quite a long long time. The worker has been told just to be glad if they have a job, and if they are given a job by the employer then take it no matter what the circumstances are. This is supposed to stop the worker from thinking he or she has any chance at any kind of negotiations in an interview for a job, and if it doesn't then they are passed up for the next potential voiceless drone that is supposed to be considered an American worker, but only if he or she stays in line no matter what the situation is. It is true that they can just quit yes, and that they can find them something else of course, but it should also be true that people can boycott a bad employer wouldn't you say ? Hey fair is fair right ?

Of course. I have no problem with unions and strikes. Labor law is another matter, which for the most part takes away universal rights and replaces them with interest group privilege.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You know I'm wondering and maybe I have it wrong.

2 people

person 1 makes 100$ a day
person 2 makes 1,000$ a day

Lets say you decide you will pay... er force business's to pay person 1 10$ more a day... Whelp, you have to pay the 1,000$ a day person 100$ more a day to be fair by %.... While I understand this logical scenario can't exists in the mindless progressive welfare group of bitching babies (because one would be *too* well off, unless they are a Democrat).. Just pretend one person makes 85$ a day and the other makes 190$ a day. It would DESTORY an employer to give people more money for less time if they make any real money.

A capitalist is employing a worker to make a pen. The cost of raw materials and overhead was $10. He sells this pen in the end for $20. So with the cost of raw materials we have now got $10 left. So the worker makes the pen all by himself whilst the boss is away somewhere else, let say in the office of the factory doing whatever. The end of the day comes, the worker has made the pen. The boss takes this pen and wants to sell it (and does for $20 as mentioned above). To pay him for his work, he gives him $3. So where did the rest of the money go ? There is $7 unaccounted for. It didn't go the worker. It went to the boss, as profit. The boss has extracted so called surplus value.

Yes. That's the reason the boss invested his time and money establishing and building the business to make pens. The worker extracts the benefit of having a job. If the worker is dissatisfied with his "cut" of the "surplus value" of the pen's price, that worker is certainly welcome to establish his own pen-making business and hire his own pen-maker. Maybe then he could undercut the sales price of his former boss by selling his pens for, say...$19. Of course, the new business owner, being cognizant of how unfair it is to pay his employees only $3 out of the price of the pen, will no doubt split the profit ($9), keeping $4.50 for himself and paying $4.50 to his pen-making employee. Better yet, since the new business owner recognizes the efforts of his pen-maker as being the source of his income, he will pay the entire sum realized by the sale of the pen, minus overhead and other related costs. $10 to the business owner, $9 to the pen-making employee.