Richard Tan wrote: > Long before the 40 hour week was enshrined in law, it was a demand raised by > socialists, trade unionists and workers. It was fought for by generations > who came before us, and only afterwards was it written into law. > > A shorter work week with no loss in pay has long been a socialist demand, > though people have forgotten it in the last three decades.
Somehow, people on pen-l who argue for a shorter work week often forget the part about "no loss of pay." For example, Gene referred to >a third economic tool, reducing the work week to create jobs.< The "no loss of pay" part of the slogan instead seems to be an _assumption_, as he continues: >That reduction will not only create jobs, it will be a solid basis for a national income-redistribution in favor of the workers, as more of production goes to wages and less to profits.< If workers' pay is reduced in step with reduction of hours, that's not exactly a redistribution. > It was a > revelation to me to see this demand raised in the Transitional Program > alongside the slogan for a "massive program of public works", which > translates to the fiscal policy advocated by Stiglitz. In Gene's original posting in this thread, reducing the work week isn't a slogan as much as an "economic tool." I can't speak for him (or for anyone else, for that matter) but I doubt that he supports the Trotskyist tradition that involves the use of a Transitional Program. I don't think that the Sandwichman supports that tradition either. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
