Of course. Who would be against curbs on OT and work-sharing as defensive
measures to limit layoffs? Who thinks 35 hours is a realizable demand today?
If you're suggesting that's my position, best reread my posts.
----- Original Message -----
From: "sam gindin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] "No cut in pay"
Since production cutbacks are actually the norm and overtime is in fact
coincident with layoffs, I'd think that this tradeoff is potentially very
relevant. A cut in hours - eg overtime - would, from an overall class
perspective, be a progressive demand even if it meant a cut in weekly pay
for specific workers. Like many other things, this isn't on the agenda
now;
isn't it relevant to ask how to get it on the agenda and might addressing
it
in the context of downsizing not be one response (Note: in auto its common
to have amjor layoff, then bring back only a portion of the workforce and
return to overtime; wouldn't this be an opportunity to demand no overtime
untill all are called back - and since all are unlikely to be completely
called back, a chance to address overtime, and if you can't take on
overtime
it makes little sense to dream about 35 hour weeks)
-----Original Message----
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marvin
Gandall
Sent: June 21, 2005 6:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] "No cut in pay"
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
