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.”

  • treefrog
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s been studies showing shorter work weeks produce more. People work better when they’re less stressed/happier/less tired.

    Sorry if that reeks of populism. I think you’re point of view reeks of authoritarianism tbh.

    Because science shows less is more, when it comes to work and school. The only reason to continue the 40 hour work week is so capitalists can keep workers in their place.

    And that’s not right.

    • severien@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I have looked up some of those studies in the past and they measured productivity by the company revenue which seems incredibly flawed.

      The studies were limited to office workers too. There’s no way a truck driver can cover the same distance 25% faster.

      • treefrog
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ll have to read those studies more closely. And I hear you on the truck driver argument. That said, I’m sure less stressed/less tired truck drivers cause a lot fewer accidents. Which may have an impact on insurance premiums for companies that are in that business.

        I guess my point is economic impact can be measured in various ways and it’s possible that everyone working less (and the 10% paying the other 90% of us a fair wage), will be a net benefit for society and the health of the individuals in society, and thus, a net benefit for the economy.

        As a non-office worker (worked in food service my whole life), I’ve seen the direct effects on mental and physical health caused by being overworked and under paid. And those negative effects certainly spill over into the quality of service, as well as the potential for a accidents at work.

        I know that’s anecdotal, but I think it also is a very reasonable observation that passes the common sense test anyway.