• HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        27 days ago

        And that was the problem. The contracts should have been for higher pay and less hours till overtime kicked in with the goal of the reduced full time allowing for a comfortable living and getting two shifts a week. So like a 30 hour week would allow for two daytime shifts of 10 hours over 3 days allowing for an extended day and week of productivity company wise while expanding the worker base.

        • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          Unions won’t vote for that either, because additional employees cost more money. The company is only going to have a fixed total number they can afford to pay out for labour. Only about half that is the actual wage the employee receives. So if you want to have more employees working less hours each, you are going to have to take a pay cut, which again, no unions are going to go for. And for that matter, the company usually won’t go for that either. They want less employees, and not just to save on labour costs.

          • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 days ago

            yeah I know they did not go for that but they should have. they were instrumental in the 40 hour week and they should not have stopped there.