Sam Gindin:
Would a union argue this if it meant more workers working - solidarity re sharing the work and more union dues? In the 40s, the Ford agreement included everyone dropping to a 36 hour week and if there was a production cutback so as to limit layoffs (and not just having layoffs by seniority - solidarity was both a living idea and vital re building in the early days of the union). This implied a significant 'cut in pay'
------------------------------ Sigh. The discussion is not about whether unions agree to limit job losses though work-sharing "if there (is) a production cutback". There is plenty of that around. We were discussing whether "shorter hours" at "reduced" pay rather than "no loss in pay" constitutes an improvement in workers' conditions, and what the slogan meant historically to the labour movement. However, as the subject of "shorter hours at no loss in pay" is mostly academic nowadays anyways, it's hardly worth beating to death, so I'm done. MG
