Constructive gadfly
Published on June 19, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics
 Once upon a time when the 60-70 hour work week lingered as a distant memory, and the 48- hour week freshly lodged in the memory cells of workers, the 40 hour work-week became virtually universal, together with an annual paid two-week vacation. Some trade unions were able to gain a 38-hour week. In addition, though normally the pay-scale was lower, untold millions of white collar workers enjoyed a 35 hour work-week, which in the main was negated by commuting time.

The concept in those days was to share the workload of a growing working population. An employer of ten now required twelve to reach full production. The theory was to sustain a thriving workforce that would enhance consumption but reduce profits. Employers and corporations, of course, saw through this and passed the added costs onto the consumer. This move led to a rift between worker and consumer even though one and the same. Seldom was the responsibility placed on corporations and investors. More often blame was attributed to unions and their alleged crime connections. White collar crime and indiscretions were whitewashed by corporate lawyers.

Over the decades, because of massive employment and entrepreneurism, consumers grew in influence and smarts by pressuring labor and business into moderating prices — everyone loves a bargain. The suggested price or the old fair trade price became history and set the stage for the pursuit of cheaper labor, starting an exodus to the southern states where union influence was practically non-existent. Now, of course, the pursuit has extended beyond our borders to the slave market of poor countries where the seventy hour work week has again reared its ugly head.

Reagan illusionists see this as a bright sunny morning for business and consumer — not unlike the aristocracy of the Old South wherein wealth in the hands of the few from the sweat of the backs of the many was the rule of this sunny but shameless era. The Old South argued that the blacks were far better off than had they not been brought here in chains; and the white trash should show gratitude for their right to read and vote, not to mention the gift of being invulnerable to lynching. Albeit not as gross, the attitude is the same today. Those who are endowed with sufficient intelligence and ambition — driving them back to the sixty hour week — and thus above the unwashed, are under the illusion that the ones below rightly belong in that niche just as natural selection dictates that monkeys be monkeys.

What the illusionists are incapable of understanding is that, barring criminals and terrorists, many among the incompetent are such because they are kept from the same level playing ground to play out reasonable success. Further, those who are helplessly non-competitive should — as are the handicapped and others of misfortune — at least be respected by the winners, who may even make the attempt subsequently to lay the groundwork for a gentler nation. Of course, there will always be winners and losers, but we can for the latter let them keep their shirts.

 Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: June 19, 2004.


Comments
on Jun 19, 2004
seems like a pretty fair recounting of how things got from there to here. despite a incredible leap in productivity that should have reduced average workweek hours by 25 instead of increasing them by 20. yesterday i read about a village a couple hundred miles south of mexico city inhabited now by literally half its normal population. the rest have journied to el norte because local farmers are lucky to get 16c per kilo for their corn and can no longer pay even mexican farmhand wages. prices are down because of heavily subsidized imports from the us (thanks to nafta) resulting in the loss of 1.3 agricultural jobs in mexico over the past 10 years.
on Jun 19, 2004
Yes, it's a sad regression. Do you realize that in the 50s, unions were actually talking about four day work week and a seven and a half hour day?
on Jun 19, 2004
yeah i do. today, the longshoremen union is the only one i know of that is able to negotiate a contract that enables its members to share available hours and still earn enough--without having to depend on overtime--to support a family at a level comparative to what i remember guys who worked at the mills or the car plants (so like 8 of 10 households on our block) doing when i was growing up.
on Jun 20, 2004
Oh, yeah, no longer can the average family get by on a single income.
on Jun 20, 2004
so if there are so many homes with two workers--both of whom are potentially working 50-60 hours a week, technology that's doing just about everything at speeds unimagined 30 years ago, much more efficient means of maintaining inventory and much more precise tooling up time....whats's wrong?
on Jun 20, 2004
The "average family" seems to have many more material goods than people had in the "good old days".

Multiple TVs, multiple cars, cable/satellite TV, computer(s), internet access, dishwashers, air conditioning, bigger homes, convenience food, eating out more, etc.

on Jun 21, 2004
That's very true, Madine, but the good old days did not have access to today's easy credit. Yet they did have the same needs: better radios, electricity in rural areas, a primitive washing machine or laundry service, homes in need of repair and extensions, they had White Castle 5 cent hamburgers--many opted for the 15 cent quarter pounder at a neighboring diner--and incredible fresh bakery products, and fabulous ice cream parlors, not to mention millions were eager to get their very first telephone. They didn't need the internet, they could buy the Times for three cents, and many more libraries were utilized. The witers had the typewriter.
on Jun 21, 2004
the suburb in which i grew up was a maturing subdivision--most of the homes were roughly the same age and possibly all were built by the same contractors. roughly half the homes were single-story; about a quarter were clearly 2-story duplexes and the rest were 2-story single family. the duplexes were invariably occupied by single families. all the homes were brick exterior and all had yards. none of the women on our block who had kids worked. most of their husbands (at least 80%) were autoworkers, steelworkers or something similar. during the 60s it was quite common for autoworkers and steelworkers to have 2-3 weeks vacation. overtime was 1.5x hourly except on weekends when it jumped to 2x normal wage; there was no comp time for hourly workers. no...there werent computers, cable or satellite of course. multiple tvs would have been one color and one bw but the technology of that day wasnt less expensive relative to wages. everyone had dishwashers (admittedly dinosaur powered)..some had a/c.
on Jun 21, 2004
Yeah, there were cutting edge gadgets back then, but it seems like there are more things now that involve an ongoing monthly bill, whereas just buying something is a one time expense.

I do agree that a demand for lower prices has driven a search for lower wages, and there are some negative consequences of that.
on Jun 21, 2004

Oh, yeah, no longer can the average family get by on a single income.

The problem is that the "average" family is not like the "average" when they were living on one income.  My family could live on either my income or my husbands, but we don't.  All we would have to do is get a smaller house, quit buying new cars, not have our expensive hobbies and cut out luxuries like satellite TV and internet, cell phones, etc.  If we lived like people used to- adequate house, one car, meals made at home, simple furnishings, etc., we could still live on one income.  But, we don't.  We want all the stuff, therefore we have to work more.

The more money people make- the more they spend and the more they *want*.  Families *can* live on one income, they just don't want to.

on Jun 22, 2004
Good point, Karma; but not all are that well off that they can opt out of double income--too many need the extra income to survive barely.