Bernie Sanders Champions '32-Hour Work Week With No Loss in Pay'
www.commondreams.org
"Needless to say, changes that benefit the working class of our country are not going to be easily handed over by the corporate elite. They have to be fought for—and won."

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.”

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.mlB
    62·
    1 year ago

    This goes against what Republicans want. They’re literally removing child labor laws so kids can get into the work force while they’re in middle school. Start a kid working at 12 years old and they can get about 50 years of labor out of them. Chances are that kid will be working 60-70 years and won’t be able to retire.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      31·
      1 year ago

      I got a job at 16 and worked part time through college and have been full time since. 1/3 of my adult life (6 years) was doing 60 hour weeks. I’m by no means the most responsible with my finances but I don’t buy tons of frivolous stuff. Haven’t been on a real vacation since 2014. Haven’t taken off unless I’ve gotten sick (I caught COVID 3 times).

      I don’t expect to be able to retire. I expect to starve to death when I can no longer work.

        • Agent_of_Kayos@lemm.ee
          7·
          1 year ago

          What is this comment even supposed to prove??

          We’re talking about how there’s a major gap in the finances of corporate execs, meanwhile the people that they make their money off the backs of are going to not have enough money themselves for life in general.

          And your only argument is “people elsewhere have it worse.” That’s a non-argument. It may be true but contributes nothing meaningful to the conversation so please find a reason that this comment or having a job and not being able to afford life when/if they have to stop working is a good thing like you seem to be implying