Work Reform

10045 readers

795 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.

Our Goals

Higher wages for underpaid workers.
Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
Better and fewer working hours.
Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1918

Bernie Sanders Champions 32-Hour Work Week With No Loss in Pay (www.commondreams.org)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

313 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You know what, fuck it. I only mentioned “effect” vs. “affect” because I thought that was somewhat interesting and more obscure rather than annoying to point out, but if you’re going to just be obtuse about it

I'm not being obtuse, I'm just disagreeing with your interpretation of the words. I feel you're ignoring the temporal aspect of when each word should be used, per how I learned to use those words in school.

Honestly not trying to upset you, you're just telling me something different that I've learned my whole life about. And you spewing out ChatGPT levels of text doesn't convince me, it just makes me feel like you're trying to obscure and be intellectually dishonest about the conversation.

I may as well have some fun and point out the various other grammatical and semantic mistakes too…

Honestly, why?

Are you so offended with someone who would disagree with you that you have to go to such extreme measures in a public forum in an attempt to shame them?

Would you act this way with somebody at a party who disagreed with you on something?

Does your life have so little meaning to it that this is the only way you could gain satisfaction out of it?

It’s funny how you started out pretending to champion political change, and to be against frivolously “commenting about it on an Internet forum”. … I should know better.

Honestly not meaning this as a snarky comeback, but, 'touch grass', sincerely. It's just voice-to-text dictation of opinions, not written prose in the style of the great writers.

And yes, I still stand by how I'm using the word affect, versus effect. Oh wait, sorry: I still stand by how I used the word affect, versus effect.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Bruh. I offered a polite correction on an ultimately inconsequential grammatical error you made. You're the one who doubled down on the error, and then continued doubling down while ignoring everything I said except for specific sentences which you clearly didn't understand.

"Spewing out ChatGPT levels of text"? WTF is that even supposed to mean? I just quickly explained the grammar at first. Then, when you didn't get that, I elaborated on the reasoning for it, and linked to like, five different independent sources, instead of just making blanket assertions. You didn't understand, so I explained— Jeez, but that's the real issue, isn't it? You don't seem to like that very much.

This is so stupid. Does it even matter? Do you do anything other than moralize down at Internet strangers about petty and incorrect semantics while repeating yourself?