Tom Walker wrote: MG:
I fail to see how this fails to meet the criterion of a "shorter work week at no loss in pay" than the existing 40 hours at $10.
And Tom explained: >40 hours at $10 = $400 a week
37.5 hours at 10.67 = $400.12 a week 32 hours at $11.25 = $360 a week (a $40 a week "cut in pay") (or, using my proposed no cut in pay at the minimum wage benchmark: $32 hours at $12 = $384, a $16 dollar a week "cut".
But I had said: These are hourly paid workers who in each scenario would enjoy a wage increase and a shorter work week. I fail to see how this fails to meet the criterion of a "shorter work week at no loss in pay" than the existing 40 hours at $10. Of course, the shallower drop in work hours, as noted above, would be more widely preferred because the take home pay would be greater. The point is this: Using Tom's example of a drop from 40 to 32 hours and a simultaneous pay increase from $10 to $12, a 20%`decline in hours and 20% increase in pay IS a "shorter work week at no loss in pay" - at the hourly rate, that is, which is how Tom's workers are compensated. Tom manufactures his case by using the weekly rate. We could get into an lengthy quibble about whether the appropriate measure should be the hourly or weekly rate, but that would be entirely academic for the following reasons: 1) No union would fight for a 20% reduction in hours and a 20% pay increase if it would result in a net LOSS in their members' weekly take home pay - and then declare victory. Maybe Tom, who has researched this area extensively, can some provide examples of unions which have triumphantly done so, but I doubt he has found many. 2) By the same token, no company would reward their workers with an 20% pay hike and a 20% decrease in their work time - and then declare victory to their shareholders and the Chamber of Commerce. Tom might find some evidence of company boards telling angry investors that this did not really represent a "shorter work week at no loss in pay", but I doubt he would find many. The shorter work week is not as complicated an issue as Tom makes out. Unions fight for reduced hours so their members get to take home the same or more money. Companies are mostly driven to reduce hours when they want their workers to take home correspondingly less - typically when their markets soften or collapse, when they are in distress, when they are at the point of insolvency or in bankruptcy protection. The effort to cap the normal work week is usually accompanied by parallel efforts to loosen layoff restrictions, reduce hourly pay, and eliminate benefits - not by generous pay increases on the order of 20%. If Tom is wondering why most unions don't embrace reduced hours at reduced pay, as he has advocated, the explanation lies here. MG
