Skip to main content

View Diary: People unemployed for six months or more face serious discrimination (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Time for 32 hour work week (8+ / 0-)

    Its time for the 32 hour work week with up to six weeks of Federally mandated payed vacation-- if you've worked for the same employer for at least six years (one week of payed vacation for every year worked for an employer up to six weeks).  

    That will end unemployment in America-- once and for all and give Americans more time to spend with their families or improving their pay continuing their schooling.

    Federal, State, and local government employers should be the first to go in this direction followed by a Federal law that mandates overtime pay for employees that work more than 32 hours per week.


    •  Rec'd even though... (6+ / 0-) has no chance of happening.

      When I was growing up (seventies), it was assumed that one of the benefits of increased productivity would be greater leisure time for working people.  Needless to say, that hasn't happened, nor is it likely to.

      But it's one more way that the plutocrats have screwed us out of the future that we could have had.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 05:18:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  France tried a... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlexDrew, Sparhawk

      ...35 hour workweek and it didn't work - it was abandoned in 2005 IIRC.

      First, remember that by reducing the workweek, people have less money to spend to stimulate the economy (keeping the pay the same for less hours would just cause some combination of inflation, loss of global competitiveness, and off-shoring).

      Reducing the workweek would also negatively impact the productivity of the country as a whole. Hiring 10 people to do a job @32 hours a week is less cost effective than hiring 8 to do the job @40 hours a week. The employer has to now incur the cost of healthcare, hiring, retaining, training, performance appraisals etc for 20% more employees at the first level -- all fixed "per employee" costs w/o any attendant increase in output. Also, remember that the manager of these people will also be doing 20% less work a week so you need 20% more managers even if the 32 hour rule was applied only to managers -- so you have to increase the first layer of management by something greater than 20% for no increase in department output. Also, it's well understood that efficiencies are often achieved by involving less people in solving a problem due to the n(n-1) communication paths in a group of n people and this impact becomes significant for n=8 vs. n=10 (it's 56 paths vs. 90 - a 61% increase!)

      Also, in some businesses (such as engineering), a subset of the people often contribute well more than their share of the intellectual content to the product and often work more hours because they actually like what they are doing. To handcuff these people and prevent them from working more than 32 hours a week would have devastating results on the amount of work the group gets done. These people are not "replaceable drones" - only a small percentage of the workers have the skills, interest, and drive to do this.

      To pick an extreme example for the sake of illustration of some of these points. If Einstein had been limited to 32 hours a week of work instead of perhaps 64 he would work when engaged on a problem, would the world have found another Einstein to develop the same science in concert with the first Einstein?

      Nope, 35 hour workweek is not going to happen - forced underemployment is not the answer to unemployment.

      •  let's try it first (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Curt Matlock

        Before being so dismissive, cuz the tried n true that's working for you. ain't working for the rest of us.

        “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

        by ozsea1 on Fri Dec 27, 2013 at 08:40:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmm... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AlexDrew, Sparhawk

          ....I'm not sure one wants to crater the recovery of the strongest economy of the world (well, maybe second strongest after China depending on how one measures) on a hunch.

          The US economy is recovering fairly well. No, 100% employment is NOT the goal - that's a sick economy. Even the notion that 3% unemployment is "steady state", "healthy",  and "frictional" probably isn't true anymore with the rapid changes due to technology (i.e., more menial  jobs will be replaced by technological solutions and those workers need to retrain or go on public assistence). Trying things that failed elsewhere and have (to my knowledge) never succeeded anywhere is pretty risky.

          If one wants to try untested (or failed when tested) approaches, there are HUNDREDS to choose from -- supporters of a 32 hour workweek need to battle it out with the other "hundreds - 1" to pick one that they agree "will work".

          •  blithely optimistic (0+ / 0-)

            Sounds just like a Villager.

            Seriously, you're a HR professional?  No wonder.

            “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

            by ozsea1 on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 08:57:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

              Not an HR professional - nowhere near HR.

              •  then why the rw villager squawking points? (0+ / 0-)

                Seriously, things are not recovering, unless you're a onepercenter.

                This demand side (70%) economy needs more people working, and at decent wages.

                Aggregate demand suffers otherwise; a sound and stable (fewer financial bubbles) capitalist economy depends on it.

                “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

                by ozsea1 on Sat Dec 28, 2013 at 06:10:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  WillR (0+ / 0-)

        On this issue you talking to creationist. No matter the facts or history, they are going to side with the unicorns.

    •  Look at France (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      it does not work.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site