The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week • Hacker News Board

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#31

Post by arethuza » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:05 AM UTC

toyg wrote: post #28

supervacuo wrote: post #25

Where on earth did the author find this revisionist nonsense? The 40-hour work week was won after a bitter decades-long fight by workers and unions against business owners. The idea that Ford bestowed it upon a grateful staff to improve capitalism is wrong, pointless and insulting. Here's an article in favour of shorter workdays that takes history a little more seriously: http://www.iww.org/history/library/misc/Bekke…

It's interesting how truth gets so easily distorted in collective consciousness. Henry Ford reportedly had a couple of intuitions about his workers also being consumers of his products, so now every time you look at any aspect of the consumerist society, some people will assume that Ford must have thought of that. Also, you can't talk about socialism in polite society, right? So the whole history of worker-rights mov…

... and "He who controls the present controls the past".

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#32

Post by toyg » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:05 AM UTC

kybernetikos wrote: post #24

yomritoyj wrote: post #2

It is strange that the author attributes the eight-hour workday to Henry Ford's business strategy. It had been a demand raised by workers themselves from much earlier: “Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

Yeah, shame that for most people the time they need for eating, household chores and commute cut only into the recreation/rest hours, and often do so enough that there's very little recreation left.

That's actually a contemporary problem. Back then, only men would work a full day; women would deal with household chores and preparing food, so when a man came home, in most cases he wouldn't literally raise a finger for 8 hours (except maybe to get some coal or logs). Also commuting was non-existent, people lived close to factories in most cases.

The truth is that, when it comes to work arrangement, we failed to keep up the struggle: we now work more (in productivity terms) and for less pay than we did in the XIX century.

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#33

Post by Ygg2 » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:14 AM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #20

girvo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less than 100 years ago, this stuff happened. Far out. I truly can't comprehend the strikebreakers getting away with... Well, cold blooded murder. Massacres. It's horrible.

Very simple: the striking workers were considered criminals - rabble that no upstanding citizen would want to get associated with. Today, they'd be called terrorists. Now think about how today, the American military gets away with bombing weddings...

To be honest it was a high risk wedding. They couldn't just let innocent people go.

After all, one of America's founding fathers said - "I'd rather murder trillions with my bear hands, than let a guilty man go free".

^ Note: Bear arms is not an error.

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#34

Post by caf » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:29 AM UTC

yomritoyj wrote: post #2

It is strange that the author attributes the eight-hour workday to Henry Ford's business strategy. It had been a demand raised by workers themselves from much earlier: “Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

The Eight Hours Monument stands opposite the Trades Hall in Melbourne: http://www.thecollectormm.com.au/gallery/photography/City/sl...

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#35

Post by Lucadg » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:29 AM UTC

> Quirky, a web company is working on an experiment to shut down operations for four weeks every year

He may want to see how this experiment worked in Italy for the last 50 years. Most companies completely shut down in August for a few weeks. Even those which want to stay open would do so with nobody else to interact with so they close too.

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#36

Post by arethuza » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:34 AM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #33

brazzy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very simple: the striking workers were considered criminals - rabble that no upstanding citizen would want to get associated with. Today, they'd be called terrorists. Now think about how today, the American military gets away with bombing weddings...

To be honest it was a high risk wedding. They couldn't just let innocent people go. After all, one of America's founding fathers said - "I'd rather murder trillions with my bear hands, than let a guilty man go free". ^ Note: Bear arms is not an error.

Both John Adams and Benjamin Franklin appear to have believed in the "Blackstone's formulation":

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

Do you have a citation for who said your quote - I'm not an American but that really doesn't sound like something one of their founders would have said (of course, I could well be wrong!).

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#37

Post by Ygg2 » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:46 AM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #36

Ygg2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest it was a high risk wedding. They couldn't just let innocent people go. After all, one of America's founding fathers said - "I'd rather murder trillions with my bear hands, than let a guilty man go free". ^ Note: Bear arms is not an error.

Both John Adams and Benjamin Franklin appear to have believed in the "Blackstone's formulation": It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation Do you have a citation for who said your quote - I'm not an American but that really doesn't sound like something one of their founders would have said (of course, I could well be wrong!).

It was obviously sarcasm. The style, the connotation, the number (?! which is preposterous).

I guess the old adage about sarcasm being indistinguishable from regular internet posts.

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#38

Post by JackMorgan » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:48 AM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #36

Ygg2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest it was a high risk wedding. They couldn't just let innocent people go. After all, one of America's founding fathers said - "I'd rather murder trillions with my bear hands, than let a guilty man go free". ^ Note: Bear arms is not an error.

Both John Adams and Benjamin Franklin appear to have believed in the "Blackstone's formulation": It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation Do you have a citation for who said your quote - I'm not an American but that really doesn't sound like something one of their founders would have said (of course, I could well be wrong!).

I think he meant it facetiously.

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#39

Post by clarry » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 11:49 AM UTC

csmuk wrote: post #3

What you do is important, not the hours I agree, but do you know what changed my life for the better with respect to work and home without changing the hours? I stopped watching television.

For a while now I've had the feeling that I should stop watching Hacker News, and other online time suckers.

Re: The Surprising Reason We Have a 40-Hour Work Week

#40

Post by arethuza » Tue, Dec 17, 2013, 12:00 PM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #37

arethuza wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both John Adams and Benjamin Franklin appear to have believed in the "Blackstone's formulation": It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation Do you have a citation for who said your quote - I'm not an American but that really doesn't sound like something one of their founders would have said (of course, I could well be wrong!).

It was obviously sarcasm. The style, the connotation, the number (?! which is preposterous). I guess the old adage about sarcasm being indistinguishable from regular internet posts.

Oops - my sarcasm detector failed to fire.

BTW You may be thinking of Poe's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."