Not suggesting that at all. Only that the choice is not to either put forth demands that seem way out in the present context, or giving up on doing anything. I think we'd agree that even defensive demands that are 'practical' even in the current climate can be fought for and though not very radical, might open the door to a larger debate within labour on RWT.
-----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marvin Gandall Sent: June 21, 2005 3:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] "No cut in pay" 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 >
