1624
Bernie Sanders unveils 32-hour workweek bill with no loss in pay for workers (thehill.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
320 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 2 years ago (2 children)

they lose hours but the hourly pay goes up, just like everybody else, no? I haven't read the bill but I would be surprised if that's not in there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Companies already offer part time retail positions, and they are shitty about it. 39.5 hours a week to avoid the full time line.

    So in this 32h future they'd just offer 31 hour positions at a lower rate and still yank people around

    Edit: I was off on values. Commenter below pointed out 30 is the mark

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    First off, it needs to be noted that the only mechanism to do that on so large a scale is to increase the minimum wage.

    Which is how they did it in ‘38 when the work week went to 44, and in ‘40 when it when to what it is today.

    The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.) and so really all you’ve done, effectively, is put far more people onto minimum wage.

    Anyone who was above that mimimim? Gets the shaft.

    And people who now are on minimum? Working two jobs to pay for everything (like most people in the bottom quarter are already doing anyhow,) so they don’t really see reduced hours anyway.

    It’s well meaning and it’d be nice, but it needs to be done differently. Unions are strong now. Stronger than they have been since I’ve been working. Join a union. Make the change yourself; eventually it’ll get normalized without the above problems. (Also, better wages, healthcare, workplace safety and everything else Unions get you.)(don’t tell my boss’s boss that. He’s still buthurt from negotiating a new contract.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.)

    News flash, they’re going to be raising prices regardless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And they won’t tack that on, too, anyhow?

    Chances are they’ll pass on the costs, increase the price, anyhow, shrink products, and raise prices even more, and then blame the last three on the first.

    Exactly like they’ve been doing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Point is, they’re going to anyway. So why even take that into consideration?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -18 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You’re the one bringing it into consideration…

    So… why are you bringing it up?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Dude you're the one who brought it up

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    I said they will pass the cost on to customers.

    You they said they would raise prices anyhow.

    I said (snarkishly) that raising rates is a separate thing than the cost of wages, and they’d still do it.

    So you they said the point is they’re a still going to do the price increase.

    You’rethey’re one that brought up the (totally separate) price increase.

    (Edit, confused you for the other guy)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •