Bernie Sanders unveils 32-hour workweek bill with no loss in pay for workers

return2ozma@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 1603 points –
Bernie Sanders unveils 32-hour workweek bill
thehill.com
307

You are viewing a single comment

We need this so fucking bad. As a species, not just America or the wealthy nations only. Everyone.

And this should just be a transitionary period down to a 24 or less hour work week. Fuck slaving away at shit jobs just to make billionaires.

We need this so fucking bad.

Of course we do, so do the corporations, though they don't realize it. With happier workers you get more profits.

Call your House of Representative member and let them know that.

If we citizens don't apply the pressure, nothing will happen.

And if your cynical about doing that, try it anyway, just as an experiment, to see what happens. Hell, even make a YouTube video about your experience doing so, for content.

Just say "Please let my representative know that I am in favor of the Bernie Sanders bill (Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act) for a 32 hour work week."

It's just a phone call. A 32 hour work week is worth a single phone call, right?

"but more hours means more productivity %%"

I'm going to go with you forgot to add the /s to your comment.

The quotes provide the same meaning, basically that you are parodying the other side.

Quotes are usually reserved for actually quoting someone else (for example), and not making a statement about parodying the other side.

It's a pretty commonly used format on many parts of the internet, I think most people would interpret it that way, especially when everybody reading will see that what is being quoted is obviously untrue.

Well I guess I'm being nuanced here, but I don't think in this specific case that works out that way, considering what it's replying to.

In other words I would agree with your interpretation if the reply was parodying something I said directly. Otherwise it just seems something of a non sequitur.

Anyway, I get what you're trying to communicate towards me, I even agree that sometimes it is using the way you describe. I would just think that's done the minority of the time, and the majority of the time quotes are used to actually quote someone.

I felt like "/s" gives the "joke" away so I opted not to have it and have people actually think critically, especially since the statement is false.

Do you think the joke matched the comment it was replying to, which was about calling your house representative?

It's what a wealthy conservative business owner might say upon reading the first sentence of your comment, I think it fits.

It’s what a wealthy conservative business owner might say upon reading the first sentence of your comment, I think it fits.

Fair enough, and that's the answer I was looking for.

The majority of the comment was about contacting your house representative, but you're right, it could match the first sentence, I guess.

I kind of wished they would have quoted that first sentence as part of their reply with the joke, to save me some time in replying.

It's a cynical statement, lighten up

lighten up

Not a matter of lightening up, its a matter of trying to understand, as it seems like such a non sequitur.

Is it really so hard to believe that somebody would want to know why somebody replied to them in such a perceived strange and unrelated sort of way?

I think if it was intended to quote someone they would put who they were quoting. Otherwise there's not really a point.

1 more...

So you’ve never read fiction?

No, in all the decades I've been on this planet, I've never read one book of fiction of any type whatsoever.

/s

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

https://youtu.be/00npeUY_1Vg?si=rPbXUkUQjnLQb0ea

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Futurama, but you're going to have to elaborate on this reply, and how it relates to my comment about contacting your house representative.

"I don't miss twice Campers."

I loved that line.

I was jokingly suggesting that unhappy workers are actually more productive but in reality I'm 100% with you.

1 more...

When COVID shut down my state (we were considered essential) we got furloughed one day a week. I was getting paid less so I was concerned, but it was honestly the best thing to happen to me. We started a garden, I got so much more done. I was healthier and happier.

Going back to 5 days a week, and longer commute (no more COVID clear freeways), I can absolutely feel my life shortening. I've gained a ton of weight, and increased stress significantly.

Yea, slaving away should be purely optional. If you love your job or you love money or you want to keep yourself distracted AND make money at the same time, by all means, knock yourself out and work 60 hour weeks.

It's a failure of the system if people have to work full time to scrape by with the very bare necessities and live in poverty, with all the nasties that come with it. America coined the term "working poor" (obligatory meme so we're on the same page)

Full Employment and Zero Protests go hand-in-hand.

As soon as unemployment figures start climbing (2008, 2014, 2016, COVID-2020) people hit the streets and cops start working a lot of extra overtime.

Imagine if people had a whole third weekend day to themselves. Imagine what they could spend their time doing that wasn't entirely predicated on enriching their bosses?

Imagine citizens actually learning how politics work and taking civic responsibilities for their own interests, instead of being chained to a job for every waking moment, and so zombified they don't even know what day of the week it is.

Happy people with stake in their own community. What a nightmare for the ownership class!

America coined the term “working poor” (obligatory meme so we’re on the same page)

It's also very American to just fucking ignore most of the world while saying things like that.

Are you saying that the term "working poor" was coined in another country?

Looking at the productivity gains, vs income gains since 1970, I would say that we need an 8 hour work week. We are producing well over 7 times as much stuff and economic value as we were in 1970

We should produce less stuff.

The amount of shit that companies produce and then just throw away because it's cheaper than donating, is staggering. There was some report a while back about Amazon doing this. Truckloads of stuff that doesn't sell, brand new, straight to the landfill. Stuff that could be donated to public schools or whatever. Fucking gross.

Not to mention all the food we produce, then waste.

A relative of mine used to work at a private school. The owner of the place wanted to throw an extra computer monitor in the trash. Literally just put it in the dumpster. That relative saved the monitor and now I am using it. Bought a DVI to HDMI cable and it works great. It's a 1680x1050 situash.

That is on third party sellers. They have to pay for warehouse space after a certain amount of time. If something isn't selling they can pay for Amazon to ship it back or destroy it. Most sellers don't actually have a warehouse themselves, they have their products shipped directly from the manufacturer to an Amazon warehouse.

Sure, but I honestly don't care much about the logistics or details of why. The underlying concept is the unnecessary waste. Whatever the reason it's happening, I disagree with it.

Agreed. The problem is a business like Amazon getting SO INCREDIBLY MASSIVE and yet completely neglecting the obvious problems with "Eh just destroy perfectly good stuff" being the easiest, most convenient option.

Heck, they're so evil I'm surprised they don't just have a ToS that says "We sell it ourselves if you don't wanna store it and don't want it returned."

But nah, filling landfills with wrecked computers, batteries, and plastics is so much more convenient this quarter /s.

They (amazon) need to be destroyed. We don't want to store them here anymore.

that's because America shits billionaires.

1 more...