First off, it needs to be noted that the only mechanism to do that on so large a scale is to increase the minimum wage.
Which is how they did it in ‘38 when the work week went to 44, and in ‘40 when it when to what it is today.
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.) and so really all you’ve done, effectively, is put far more people onto minimum wage.
Anyone who was above that mimimim? Gets the shaft.
And people who now are on minimum? Working two jobs to pay for everything (like most people in the bottom quarter are already doing anyhow,) so they don’t really see reduced hours anyway.
It’s well meaning and it’d be nice, but it needs to be done differently. Unions are strong now. Stronger than they have been since I’ve been working. Join a union. Make the change yourself; eventually it’ll get normalized without the above problems. (Also, better wages, healthcare, workplace safety and everything else Unions get you.)(don’t tell my boss’s boss that. He’s still buthurt from negotiating a new contract.)
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.)
News flash, they’re going to be raising prices regardless.
And they won’t tack that on, too, anyhow?
Chances are they’ll pass on the costs, increase the price, anyhow, shrink products, and raise prices even more, and then blame the last three on the first.
Exactly like they’ve been doing.
Point is, they’re going to anyway. So why even take that into consideration?
You’re the one bringing it into consideration…
So… why are you bringing it up?
Dude you're the one who brought it up
I said they will pass the cost on to customers.
You they said they would raise prices anyhow.
I said (snarkishly) that raising rates is a separate thing than the cost of wages, and they’d still do it.
So you they said the point is they’re a still going to do the price increase.
You’rethey’re one that brought up the (totally separate) price increase.
(Edit, confused you for the other guy)
I haven't said anything yet
Apologies. I confused you for the OC.
I corrected that. Still, though, it’s gaslighting bullshit.
they lose hours but the hourly pay goes up, just like everybody else, no? I haven't read the bill but I would be surprised if that's not in there.
Companies already offer part time retail positions, and they are shitty about it. 39.5 hours a week to avoid the full time line.
So in this 32h future they'd just offer 31 hour positions at a lower rate and still yank people around
Edit: I was off on values. Commenter below pointed out 30 is the mark
First off, it needs to be noted that the only mechanism to do that on so large a scale is to increase the minimum wage.
Which is how they did it in ‘38 when the work week went to 44, and in ‘40 when it when to what it is today.
The problem is that company are absolutely going to pass that off to customers (aka, the workers… ultimately.) and so really all you’ve done, effectively, is put far more people onto minimum wage.
Anyone who was above that mimimim? Gets the shaft.
And people who now are on minimum? Working two jobs to pay for everything (like most people in the bottom quarter are already doing anyhow,) so they don’t really see reduced hours anyway.
It’s well meaning and it’d be nice, but it needs to be done differently. Unions are strong now. Stronger than they have been since I’ve been working. Join a union. Make the change yourself; eventually it’ll get normalized without the above problems. (Also, better wages, healthcare, workplace safety and everything else Unions get you.)(don’t tell my boss’s boss that. He’s still buthurt from negotiating a new contract.)
News flash, they’re going to be raising prices regardless.
And they won’t tack that on, too, anyhow?
Chances are they’ll pass on the costs, increase the price, anyhow, shrink products, and raise prices even more, and then blame the last three on the first.
Exactly like they’ve been doing.
Point is, they’re going to anyway. So why even take that into consideration?
You’re the one bringing it into consideration…
So… why are you bringing it up?
Dude you're the one who brought it up
I said they will pass the cost on to customers.
Youthey said they would raise prices anyhow.I said (snarkishly) that raising rates is a separate thing than the cost of wages, and they’d still do it.
So
youthey said the point is they’re a still going to do the price increase.You’rethey’re one that brought up the (totally separate) price increase.(Edit, confused you for the other guy)
I haven't said anything yet
Apologies. I confused you for the OC.
I corrected that. Still, though, it’s gaslighting bullshit.