Sure, we can agree on that. Over and out. :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "sam gindin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] "No cut in pay"
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
