Tom Walker wrote:
>
> ------------ forwarded message ------------
>
> The Confederation des syndicats nationaux (Confederation of National Trade
> Unions representing 220 000 workers in the Province of Québec) have
> published a number of studies to help local unions negociate reductions in
> working time. The table of contents of these documents are available on our
> web site:
>
> http://www.csn.qc.ca/Pageshtml2/Rech.html
>
> If you are interested, I could send you a copy of these research papers.
>
> In a nut shell our position goes like this:
> 1) reduction in work time is not a panacea but can contribute to maintain
> and create employment and distribute work more equitably within society;
> 2) work time should not be considered only on a daily , a weekly or an
> annual basis but on the whole active lifespan of workers;
> 3) there is no one big way to reduce work time, such as the 4 day week.
> There are dozens of changes that are possible to the regulation of work time
> (vacation, reduction of overtime, leave with or without out pay for a number
> of reasons, progressive retirement, early retirement, voluntary part-time of
> limited duration, paid holidays etc etc) but the particular demands unions
> make must a) correspond to the aspirations of the workers; and b) must be
> adapted to the realities (work organization for example) of each workplace
> if they are to be efficient in creating jobs. (For example one extra week of
> vacation in a service industry is not the same thing as one week extra
> vacation in a manufacturing plant operating 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
> In the first example there would be minor or no job creation since workers
> on vacation are usually not replaced ; in manufacturing, they are.
> 4) on the wage compesation issue, at it's 1994 National Congress our
> organization voted a resolution which says that whwn negociating the
> reduction of work time unions should pursue the objective of protecting the
> purchasing power of the workers. This means that when negociating workers
> must take into account a certain number of elements:
> 1) compensation must be paid for productivity increases resulting from the
> decrease in work time or to changes in the organization of work accompanying
> the reduction of work time;
> 2) the decrease in the marginal tax rate which, in a progressive personnal
> income tax system, makes the after tax income decrease less than the
> before-tax income (for example a 10% decrease in before-tax income can
> result in a 7%-8% reduction in take home pay;
> 3) the fact that the reduction in work time can sometimes reduce workers
> expenditures tied to their work. For example a four day work week
> necessitates less expenditures than a five day work week (transport,
> clothes, restaurant, baby-sitting, etc);
> 4) finally we have to take into account the fact that more time away from
> work, to be with the family, to read a good book, to participate in
> community affairs or political affairs or just relax is valuable to people.
> A lot of people would consider that the price to pay for one day of free
> time per week is reasonable if it costs 20$, 30$, or 40$ on their weekly
> paycheck . The cost is even more reasonable if the final outcome is more
> jobs for the community. For lower salaried workers of course this position
> cannot hold. Unions must protect and increase the purchasing power of low
> salaried workers. Also the reduction in working time must be an occasion to
> convert involuntary part time and temporary employment into full time and
> regular employment.
>
> We think that this way of seeing things, although more difficult and
> engaging than the usual "reduction with full compensation" slogan which
> hasn't been too successful since the mid 1970's, can be more productive in
> the work place. This is more so if the outcome is more jobs. It means
> linking the reduction in work time to changes in the way work is organized
> and it means an occasion to democratize the organization of work. It
> involves real solidarity (not just discourse) between workers who have a job
> and workers who don't. It gives more time for people to engage in community
> building and political action.
>
> Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> François Aubry
> Research Department
> Confédération des syndicats nationaux
> 1601 De Lorimier
> Montréal (Québec)
> 514-529-4995
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ------- end forwarded message -----------
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Walker
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> #408 1035 Pacific St.
> Vancouver, B.C.
> V6E 4G7
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (604) 669-3286
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Of course, we must include the business and system levels in making the
polices which guide us in our necessary future of sharing the work
remaining after automation and conservation have made full employment
impossible.
Finally, the wage/profit split must be the split of the real incomes of the
groups if we define consumption as spent income. That is...
currentdollarwages/currentspentdollarprofits must be equal to
realconsuptionworkers/realconsumptionowners since paper losses and/or gains
must shift to follow the physical reality.
Suspend your doubt! Just as the physical reality is shifted by nothing more
than ideas and financial paper so it is also true that ideas and financial
paper are shifted by the physical reality at least so some degree.
Of the total GNP if the owners get 10% but only consume 1% and investment
can only take 4% then the other 5% will get inflated, or taxed, or lost
in some form of paper evaporation. But, we always wanted our paper to be
liquid, the abibility to sell out instantly. It's just that lack of
loyalty on the part of owners that creates the illusion of vast profits
even though the king can only eat four steaks each day.
The problem of whether to cut wages as the work week is cut is the kind of
thing that the "market" handles very well if the whole world cuts the work
week at the same time.
Our wasteful consumer economy should end by its replacement with a
durable, efficient, and sustainable economy. To avoid suffering we
need to cut the need for high consumption before cutting the high
income needed to sustain high consumption.
So, we need to continue to have full-employment, hyper-acitve
production, wild-growth, and max-production as parts of our
system while we build a DURABLE system that doesn't NEED high consumption
to provide a life of luxury.
Durability has been ignored in our discussions about resource conservation
because it works too well to allow full employment.
Combined with a stable population, durability will make inheritance, not
production/work, the main source of wealth.
As you know, sharing work is not the final answer. I suppose any
adjustment is better than ignoring the problem, yet I feel that we are
just sweeping the dirt under the rug if we don't include some problems
with a REDUCED WORK WEEK, called IT in the following:
It evades a question about the concept of our earning our livings.
Is life a gift, or do we earn our livings?
It buys into bad assumptions about exclusive wage respectability.
In the U.S.S.R. constitution they had, "If you don't work, you
don't eat." In America profit is a good form of income.
Unearned income will rise as the need for human labor is cut.
It ignores the needs of people who are too young, too old, sick, or
even just lazy.
Barry Brooks
http://home.earthlink.net/~durable
