Work Reform

10003 readers

20 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world

1925

Bernie Sanders Champions 32-Hour Work Week With No Loss in Pay (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 1 year ago by eee@lemm.ee to c/workreform@lemmy.world

321 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As part of his Labor Day message to workers in the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday re-upped his call for the establishment of a 20% cut to the workweek with no loss in pay—an idea he said is "not radical" given the enormous productivity gains over recent decades that have resulted in massive profits for corporations but scraps for employees and the working class.

"It's time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay," Sanders wrote in a Guardian op-ed as he cited a 480% increase in worker productivity since the 40-hour workweek was first established in 1940.

"It's time," he continued, "that working families were able to take advantage of the increased productivity that new technologies provide so that they can enjoy more leisure time, family time, educational and cultural opportunities—and less stress."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not playing this game with you, sorry.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So in other words you don’t want to define it so you can just claim to be right. 👍

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I told you, I'm not playing this game with you. If you don't understand lobbying, that's not my problem.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I asked you a simple question. Is “being bought” taking money from lobbyists? Yes or No? Or alternative you can define what being bought is so I know how to answer your question. It’s incredibly simple.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not a simple question because giving money is not the only thing lobbyists do and it's not my job to hold your hand and walk you through the basics of lobbying.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But it’s ok to ask me a subjective question like what Senators aren’t bought when you refuse to tell me what you consider bought? Do you want me to go to open secrets and look for a Senator that didn’t take donations from corporations? Because if so, cross Bernie Sanders off the list. Otherwise it’s on you to tell me your definition or you’re just full of shit. I’m fine with either.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Insulting me will not get me to play your game.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you ever get out of that hole you dug yourself let me know k?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you ever figure out how lobbying works, you let me know.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, I’ll go ask Bernie why he took that money from Alphabet Inc.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, you've already made it abundantly clear that you don't know what lobbying means. No need to rub it in.