The desperation and work culture of believing we can just slave away into success are what keeps people from rocking the boat. Faith in being able to win the game is how we got here.
Yes, Americans are not still working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. (But phrasing things backwards that way is confusing!)
40 hours a week is typical for normal, salaried jobs. But, because union membership is extremely low, some people are pressured into working a lot more than that. Also, some people have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. But, I don’t think 6 days a week is at all normal, nor is 10 hours a day.
It’s actually the USA that is to thank for the normal work day being only 8 hours. In post-civil-war USA 6 days a week, 10 hours a day was the norm. But, workers in Chicago went on strike on May 1st, demanding an 8 hour day. Their argument was “Eight Hours for work. Eight hours for rest. Eight hours for what we will.” They didn’t get what they were demanding. Instead the strikers were met by police and Pinkerton violence. Some anarchists in the crowd responded to that police violence by throwing bombs (at least, allegedly). The police responded to the bombs by shooting the crowd. They then rounded up the suspected leaders of the anarchist movement and after incredibly brief show-trials, they hanged them.
It was actually the backlash against the hangings that energized the unions and communists around the world, and although it took years to actually achieve the 8 hour day they demanded. The rest of the world also celebrates a worker day on May 1st as a result of this event. But, of course, in the US, “May Day” is seen as being too close to “communism” so Labor Day is in September instead.
It took decades more to reduce the work week from 6 days to 5. Again this was the result of union pressure.
American workers have lots immense amounts of power since the 1880s. Even if those striking workers were beaten by Pinkertons, they were at least able to organize a general strike.
It looks to me like the top post is a screenshot of Twitter, and the two below are on Tumblr. I think they were just sharing their own post. But I don’t use either site, so I can’t be sure.
How are you referencing the OECD and claiming 60 hour weeks in the same paragraph? If you actually checked the OECD that you reference, you know hours worked is wayyyyyy lower.
I generally assume that the OECD statistics are underreporting overtime and moonlighting/illicit work wouldn’t be included in these statistics anyway, though the latter is probably a bigger issue in poorer countries. Also, it doesn’t make a difference between part time work and fulltime work, which greatly diminishes how useful it is for gauging how much a fulltime employee works.
I would guess he is saying that the hours listed in the OECD, which I think were 1730 per year, is skewed. I wonder if separating rich/middle/poor would yield vastly different results.
Are USians not still working 10 hours day/6 days a week? The USA are usually near the top of the “time worked per week” OECD rankings.
Also, interesting how the poster and first replier have the same avatar. Is that a historical figure?
The desperation and work culture of believing we can just slave away into success are what keeps people from rocking the boat. Faith in being able to win the game is how we got here.
Yes, Americans are not still working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. (But phrasing things backwards that way is confusing!)
40 hours a week is typical for normal, salaried jobs. But, because union membership is extremely low, some people are pressured into working a lot more than that. Also, some people have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. But, I don’t think 6 days a week is at all normal, nor is 10 hours a day.
It’s actually the USA that is to thank for the normal work day being only 8 hours. In post-civil-war USA 6 days a week, 10 hours a day was the norm. But, workers in Chicago went on strike on May 1st, demanding an 8 hour day. Their argument was “Eight Hours for work. Eight hours for rest. Eight hours for what we will.” They didn’t get what they were demanding. Instead the strikers were met by police and Pinkerton violence. Some anarchists in the crowd responded to that police violence by throwing bombs (at least, allegedly). The police responded to the bombs by shooting the crowd. They then rounded up the suspected leaders of the anarchist movement and after incredibly brief show-trials, they hanged them.
It was actually the backlash against the hangings that energized the unions and communists around the world, and although it took years to actually achieve the 8 hour day they demanded. The rest of the world also celebrates a worker day on May 1st as a result of this event. But, of course, in the US, “May Day” is seen as being too close to “communism” so Labor Day is in September instead.
It took decades more to reduce the work week from 6 days to 5. Again this was the result of union pressure.
American workers have lots immense amounts of power since the 1880s. Even if those striking workers were beaten by Pinkertons, they were at least able to organize a general strike.
It looks to me like the top post is a screenshot of Twitter, and the two below are on Tumblr. I think they were just sharing their own post. But I don’t use either site, so I can’t be sure.
How are you referencing the OECD and claiming 60 hour weeks in the same paragraph? If you actually checked the OECD that you reference, you know hours worked is wayyyyyy lower.
I generally assume that the OECD statistics are underreporting overtime and moonlighting/illicit work wouldn’t be included in these statistics anyway, though the latter is probably a bigger issue in poorer countries. Also, it doesn’t make a difference between part time work and fulltime work, which greatly diminishes how useful it is for gauging how much a fulltime employee works.
So you’re just adding on an extra 25 hours a week to the actual average number based off vibes?
C’mon man :(
I would guess he is saying that the hours listed in the OECD, which I think were 1730 per year, is skewed. I wonder if separating rich/middle/poor would yield vastly different results.