Why are you quoting statistics from 1985 about a 2015 economy?
I'm happy to allow the government to come in and ease the exploitation of workers with bare-minimum reforms. See? Isn't this fun? Love heuristics and internal biases.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Fuck Scott Walker and his 7 day work weeks.
- Thread starter Coins
- Start date
- Status
Why are you quoting statistics from 1985 about a 2015 economy?
I'm happy to allow the government to come in and ease the exploitation of workers with bare-minimum reforms. See? Isn't this fun? Love heuristics and internal biases.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Now if we get rid of the minimum wage people will be forced to work all of the time for nothing.
Emancipation proclamation repealed
Emancipation proclamation repealed
IISANDERII
Member
lmao
1985 that just says it all
"Government is at its worst when you have apathy from its citizens."
Fragamemnon
Member
Jeb Bush and Scott Walker go off on these rants because increasing work hours is one way that they can get measurable economic growth-something their domestic platforms depend upon-without measures that directly increase consumer aggregate demand (which drives inflation and tigher labor markets). More work hours just means more yields from productivity, and those gains have been proven easy to keep out the hands of the worker class.
For nothing? Nah, they'll get company vouchers to pay for their company housing and company groceries and - oh hey, housing just went up, better work more hours or your family will die in the cold.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I mean, at least it's data. Better than, "This will result in widespread misery because Walker's a Republican and I hate Republicans!"
Yes. It's data. From 1985.
exmachina64
Banned
Slavery for all.
Box of Kittens
Banned
It was a combination of factors. First, Wisconsin as a state isn't nearly as Democratic leaning as its reputation. It's only a little bit off from the average, so you start with a strong base that loves Walker for ideological reasons. Second, he picked a good target, politically-speaking, in public employee unions. Public employees and unions have both been so demonized at this point that a public employee union just isn't popular. Third, he benefitted from the national economic recovery. Even though Wisconsin's job growth has lagged the rest of the nation, all people see is "hey, things are getting better." Fourth, many voters were uncomfortable with the recall itself and were essentially voting Walker as a protest against it. A fair number of people who didn't like what he did to collective bargaining still voted for him because of reasons 3 and 4. Fifth, he faced a weak candidate (this is a recurring theme in Scott Walker's political career). Sixth, it was a special election and the Democratic base is generally less likely to vote in those than the Republican base.
As NeoXChaos pointed out, the recall was a huge strategic error on the part of the Wisconsin Democrats. Part of that is understandable as people were acting largely out of shock and anger, but still the party should have seen what would happen. Unfortunately, the Wisconsin Democratic Party is largely incompetent so this was to be expected.
God didn't need to pay bills, though. They'll find a way to spin it, as they're now trying to say "well, ignore the Pope" when it finally came to a point that the Pope called out much of the failings to ideas and values modern Republicans hold, especially on labor and the environment. They'll cling to what works for their shitbrained ideas, and be quick to toss out anything against it.
Oh dear haha, he really doesn't get it does he
If you really want to be disgusted, just google Glenn Grothman. He's the biggest human piece of crap in existence.
Back when I did some political blogging with PoliGAF I wrote an article on him. There are probably thousands more examples I could add to that article now on how he's just slime.
Funny thing was last time he ran unopposed in a primary I just did a write in vote for "A literal piece of shit."
Wait, so is that just this state because my manager used to suck at making a schedule and because I never had a set schedule since job requirement required an open schedule once a month I'd get stuck with this shitty 10 day work week because I'd have off two days at the beginning of one work and off two days at the end of the next. Was it illegal for her to do that? I used to complain every time I got stuck with it because none of the other supervisors ever did.
Edit: nevermind
I haven't worked there for a while but it was one of the things that made me leave. Plus closing nights at 9:30pm followed by opening days at 7am for 11.25 an hour.
By the end of my 10 days working I was miserably depressed.
Edit: nevermind
I haven't worked there for a while but it was one of the things that made me leave. Plus closing nights at 9:30pm followed by opening days at 7am for 11.25 an hour.
By the end of my 10 days working I was miserably depressed.
CornBurrito
Member
Problem, depending on your viewpoint, is that they might simply fire anyone not willing to sign away their entire life to basically be an indentured servant for a company of their choice.
There are many states that are "At-Will" I don't understand how many people think (by the way they're speaking) that Wisconsin is the first one in the entire nation...
CornBurrito
Member
"I'm not for slavery or anything but I am pro"
1. No minimum wage.
2. No limit to number of hours you can required to work.
3. The government should do nothing for workers, and perhaps we should get rid of welfare and food assistance.
For the working poor this means they can choose who they work 100 hrs/week for $1.00/hr for. Or they could simply make the choice to leave their job and freeze/starve in the streets until they die or suck it up and go back to an employer of their choice.
I guess it isn't slavery since instead of them providing a food/roof they give you just barely enough to purchase your own meager accommodations. And it isn't slavery since you can choose your owner. In fact you could even choose to have no owner and just die from starvation. Slaves who didn't work were killed. So it isn't really anything like slavery.
edit: Also why do we need child labor laws? or OSHA? I'm sure it is in the best interest of employers to not hire young children, as well as provide a safe work environment. Back before OSHA and child labor laws nobody took advantage of being able to hire children, and all the workplaces were perfectly safe. It isn't fair to use the government to bully employers into not being able to do things like hire children, or having to do things like make a workplace "safe" based on some arbitrary standard of "safe".
1. No minimum wage.
2. No limit to number of hours you can required to work.
3. The government should do nothing for workers, and perhaps we should get rid of welfare and food assistance.
For the working poor this means they can choose who they work 100 hrs/week for $1.00/hr for. Or they could simply make the choice to leave their job and freeze/starve in the streets until they die or suck it up and go back to an employer of their choice.
I guess it isn't slavery since instead of them providing a food/roof they give you just barely enough to purchase your own meager accommodations. And it isn't slavery since you can choose your owner. In fact you could even choose to have no owner and just die from starvation. Slaves who didn't work were killed. So it isn't really anything like slavery.
edit: Also why do we need child labor laws? or OSHA? I'm sure it is in the best interest of employers to not hire young children, as well as provide a safe work environment. Back before OSHA and child labor laws nobody took advantage of being able to hire children, and all the workplaces were perfectly safe. It isn't fair to use the government to bully employers into not being able to do things like hire children, or having to do things like make a workplace "safe" based on some arbitrary standard of "safe".
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
May 2004: 5.4% of wage and salary workers usually worked both Saturday and Sunday, meaning the number of those who usually worked 7-day workweeks could not have been higher than that. It was almost certainly less, since that figure includes those who worked both Saturday and Sunday, but not all five weekdays besides.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Oh, he gets it just fine.
And that's pre-recession numbers of a 2004 population of almost 300 million people. Even taking just employed adults, 5.4% (or loser) is a lot of people.
It might not be the fiery dystopia you think that some are arguing for in this thread, but you're way too quick to brush aside the potential abuses because "we probably would've heard about them".
ZackieChan
Member
As opposed to the flawless logic of:
"It's horrible! I KNOW they'll take advantage of it. Don't relax! Everything to worry about!"
Yes, but the ones saying this is bad/horrible/tantamount to slavery are putting forth a conclusion with no data to back it up. They are the ones who should be producing these studies. How about some data from the labor cesspool that is Maryland, home of working 365 days without a day off (as mentioned above)? Surely there would be a peep out there about the horrors?
Link
The Autumn Wind
Yes? More people should get angry and fight back when rights are stripped away. Especially rights that people literally died for.
Well, no, the legislature of Wisconsin decided to make this change. It should be those sponsors in the legislature, and their supporters, who should be able to argue why this change is necessary.
Your argument is that "because I haven't heard any anecdotes (in this thread?) about abuse, it must not exist". That's not correct. I don't actually think the studies that I wished existed;
me said:
Actually exist. At some point, you and I are both relying on internal biases on how this will play out since such statistics don't exist, but if the legislature wanted to make the case to change the law, tell me why this is working in other states and how it won't be abused by employers. Show me stats about states that have switched to this method and how this has not affected hours or use as a threat of employment for compliance.
Saying well, where's the fire?!?? is silly. It's a legitimate fear that's been brushed aside by others as "well of course it won't happen or we would've heard about it". I don't buy that.
There's a very lengthy history of employer abuses of employees in America, one I naturally defer to when I see laws like this passed. I'm very skeptical of its necessity and purpose because of such history.
ZackieChan
Member
I mean, the change in the law gives employees the right to waive that restriction without getting permission from the government. Technically it is GIVING you a right. The issue, to me, is whether there is demonstrable abuse of this in other states where the situation is the same. Hence I and others' calls for evidence.
And your response doesn't address that.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Let's call a spade a spade. This is about giving a business the legal ability to make their employees work more.
Would you argue that getting rid of minimum wage is giving someone the right to work for less because some people out there are willing to do so?
Box of Kittens
Banned
Let's not forget the accusations of blind partisanship that he throws around every time, even when the accusation literally makes zero sense. In what universe does the left oppose laws intended to protect workers until a Republican proposes getting rid of them?
ZackieChan
Member
As I said before, I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. But some of the hyperbolic responses, particularly in the beginning of the thread (Foffy, for instance) need some calming influence.
Getting paid less is very different than being able to work more. Your analogy is flawed. Again, you're making the assumption that employers will use this to make employees work 7 days a week for extended periods of time. Other states allow this, so we would see those detrimental effects if what you're speculating will happen actually will happen. So far no one has showed that.
IISANDERII
Member
You need data to tell you that Americans are already overworked? It's common knowledge, how on Earth can you not know this?
http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93604
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sara-horowitz/americans-are-overworked-_b_5642629.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts
http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-overworked-2012-5?op=1
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-americans-are-overworked-and-under-pleasured
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-workers-are-burned-out-and-overworked-2015-06-30
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/02/16/Is-America-Overworked
http://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/am...burnt-out-but-surprisingly-happy-at-work.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...sed-out-overwhelmed-totally-exhausted/284615/
Please check if any of these data are from 1985 or older.
ZackieChan
Member
Didn't look at all of them, but the question (again) is whether or not businesses in states where a 7-day week is allowed have taken advantage of this to the detriment of their employees. Whether or not they are overworked already is not at issue.
^^ Is this Scott's position?
Why stop at $1? Businesses could pay .25 an hour and provide more jobs!
I knew Scott Walker was on that good old bullshit when he manufactured a budget deficit to fuck unions. Is there a comprehensive list of Scott Walker fuckery?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Again, that 5.4% is almost certainly too high. DataFerrett says something like 2.3% of workers in May 2004 usually worked 7 days a week. And the relevant population wasn't the total population of the U.S., natch, but the significantly lower population of workers.
Hold up. Who died for the right of (some) workers to not work a full week without government permission?
Actually, let's do forget that. You're falling into Link's trap of attacking the participants of a discussion rather than the topic of the discussion.
I know, I know, now I am, too.
In any event, you misunderstand me. My issue isn't that people oppose the change enacted in Wisconsin. It's that they oppose it without understanding it, or render its consequences in apocalyptic language. "My God! This dastardly governor! He's forcing us to work 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, in exchange for rice and beans!"
I clicked the first link. It's not clear to me what any of these have to do with the present topic. The question is whether the seven-day workweek has any realistic prevalence where it's legal, not whether America's workers are stressed out, overwhelmed, or totally exhausted.
Wow
ZackieChan
Member
I'm exhausted from trying to draw that information out of them. Is Evilore Scott Walker now?
Do we have to research everything for you? Please educate yourself and read up on the labor movement and anti-union violence. What we have now was fought and bled for. Those of us who know history understand what's at stake.
Which sort of defeats the purpose of providing national statistics. Again, I want to see studies into how this affects: the amount of people working 7 day work weeks, the hours of workers in states with these laws versus without them, and the use of a 7 day work week as a threat for employment and fire at will states.
To the best of my knowledge (and I've been skimming the Google about this), nothing like that exists. Fine.
Why did Wisconsin change this law? Was a study done on its necessity and potential effects? What states with other productivity did the cite to attempt to emulate? Who was asking for this change? We're there people who were being denied a 7th work day?
As much as you don't buy the claims you've described as hyperbolically apocalyptic, I don't buy your hand waving of the issue that "if it was a problem, we would've heard about it!" Not every exploitation of a workforce causes riots in the streets. It can be passive and subtle.
Maybe that's not happening here! But again -- why was this law changed? What was the reason the Wisconsin legislature left as if this was a provision to be repealed? I'm immediately skeptical of stripping any worker's rights (and yes, admittedly, I don't really trust Republicans to look out for the common working man, my biases), but without an actual problem cited that this bill was attempting to solve... Why change it? What as the Wisconsin legislature done to convince me, skeptical liberal, that this won't lead to the employee abuse my mind travels to?
It's well documented in this thread that there are few, if any, relevant statistics on this matter. Which is part of the problem. Why did the Wisconsin legislature feel the need to change this provision? What was their reasoning? What was the problem that needed to be solved that was enough to repeal this specific law?
ZackieChan
Member
That's a good question, but it doesn't negate his point.
I don't disagree. Those aren't really relevant statistics. That's part of the problem. There are no relevant statistics.
Box of Kittens
Banned
If I argued that your statements on the legislation were incorrect because of that, I'd be committing a logical fallacy. But I did no such thing.
Fenderputty
Banned
People attacking meta for a lack of education are .... Not smart.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
If huge numbers of voters are already working hard during the week, why would a candidate come out and say they need to work harder? This implies that they're doing a shitty job now.
How can he gain trust and votes by saying what people don't want to hear?
How can he gain trust and votes by saying what people don't want to hear?
IISANDERII
Member
Yeah because working 7 days a week has nothing to do with being overworked and stressed out. Get real, are you trolling?
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
A person who makes a statement should be prepared to back it up. I seriously doubt a single drop of blood was shed in getting the one day of rest in seven laws passed.
Essentially, you want the change from the status quo to be justified. That's a reasonable position to take, typically. However, I imagine the Republicans in Wisconsin would turn that around and ask that the status quo itself be justified. That would be my position, at least. What good reason is there to keep people from working when they want to unless they first get government's permission? I think that, at the very least, the fear of abuse should be substantiated before that infringement is considered justified.
Maybe not, but I see little value in a thread where everyone calls each other a poopyhead, regardless of whether they tie that condition in to the validity of the others' arguments.
Fenderputty
Banned
None of what you posted has anything to do with 7 day work weeks, specifically.
- Status