81–90 of 237 posts
I can see why workers are most concerned with their own benefit but total productivity is important to the health of a business and economy, which is important to workers as well. And no, working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.
I can see why workers are most concerned with their own benefit but total productivity is important to the health of a business and economy, which is important to workers as well. And no, working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.
Studies have shown time and time again that a 4 day work week results in higher productivity and happier employees. Happy employees also do better work.
I can see why workers are most concerned with their own benefit but total productivity is important to the health of a business and economy, which is important to workers as well. And no, working 32 hours is not as productive as 40 hours.
Studies have shown time and time again that a 4 day work week results in higher productivity and happier employees. Happy employees also do better work.
It's a non-sensical argument. If a 4 day work week is more productive than a 5 day work week it means the 5th days is producing negative work. You could literally do nothing every Friday and you would not be less productive than a 4 day work week.
They do but an even better option is worker cooperatives which bring democracy and fair profit sharing to the workplace.
I agree. I'm kind of surprised more unions haven't taken responsibility for opening up co-ops. They have lots of money to do it, it's pro-worker, and it enables them to own the means of production. Unions ironically act very conservative these days. They could take some bold steps to potentially create very worker-friendly, worker-owned shops, which would create a voluntary, non-coercive path towards the "market soci…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? From where I stand it’s a constant race to extract more from workers and unions and possibly legislation are some of the very few forces impeding it.
> Are you implying that it is unions that cause corporations to seek offshoring, automation etc.? Well that's at least the spooky scary threat that companies use to get people to not join union so my bet is that it's total bullshit and if they could already offshore their workers and factories they would have done so already. Milk those higher wages and benefits while they're still here because they won't change the…
Just look at the automotive industry. They have not only been offshoring, but the unions have strangled them to the point where it nearly destroyed the industry.
I will only buy non-US cars as a result of this (mostly because of poor qualit).
I'm conflicted about unions, but it would be truly amazing if they brought us the 4-day work-week the way they got the 8-hour workday and weekends.
Have you looked into worker cooperatives? Ocean Spray is an example in the US. Mondragon is an example of one in Spain that has tens of thousands of workers and has existed for many decades.
Kudos for the WGA for the achievement. I partially agree with the statement that unions work. From what I see Unions are great and the current model works in situations where there are 2 monopolies, a monopoly of a work place and monopoly of workforce. In this case the WGA is the monopoly of workforce and the Hollywood is the monopoly of workplace. Along the history I saw that this dynamic worked and got advancements…
My experiences dealing with unionized workforces in Canada as a customer/consumer have generally not been good at all.
Such workers often exhibit tremendous inefficiency, a lack of care, and disinterest. This results in low-quality service/work, and a bad experience for the customers/consumers involved.
This is particularly noticeable when dealing with government employees who are unionized, such as public school teachers, some public hospital staff, the police, public transit system staff, and bureaucrats.
Unionization in such cases creates an environment where there's no incentive to perform well, as there's pretty much no downside to the unionized worker for providing terrible service.
While private sector unionization can result in a similarly-bad customer/consumer experience, at least there's often some degree of competition involved, which can give customers/consumers an alternative when service is remarkably awful. The bad service isn't as unavoidable as it is in the case of the public sector.
The content out of Hollywood matches this pattern, too. I've found it to be among the least-entertaining, least-interesting, and lowest-quality content around. I've had much better results with content from small, non-unionized, independent creators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> unions are for fighting for better conditions for their workers regardless of gender or race Regardless of, but not blind to. Different workers do experience different conditions because of race and gender among other things, and unions need to account for those differences not pretend they don't exist. > I could in no way trust a tech Union to actually fight for me and not against me You probably didn't mean it th…
I think we should have completely race and gender blind hiring and promotions. That enough is something someone that cares about equity is against, is it not? Being against equity, which is equal outcomes regardless of input, does not imply one is discriminating people by race or gender or harassing people.
I'm not a business owner or a CEO, and I can say wholeheartedly that I do not believe unions are good for anybody. It's just like rent control that gives renters lower prices but it destroys the supply eventually. Unions that get wage hikes by stomping their feet and yelling in public are not making the economy better. The detriment is that over time, it makes it harder to hire new workers because the union will get…
Sounds like a manager lol