you know why forty hours a week is considered the standard maximum?
because for SEVENTY FUCKING YEARS, unions demanded a forty-hour week and worked their asses off trying to get it.
SEVENTY YEARS workers organised, communicated, educated, protested, screamed at the establishment. They stood defiant, they persevered in the face of violent opposition from their employers, they went on strike to the point where one fifth of america’s labour force was on strike in 1919.
Organise. Unite. Stand up.
Stop listening to the bullshit about unions as a concept being corrupt or bad. Stop listening to the bullshit that capitalists invented these things and gave them to us out of the non-existent goodness of their slimy black hearts.
Unions gave you the labour rights you have. A minimum wage, a 40-hour week, Saturdays off, meal breaks–all these basic things were fought for by unions. UNIONS did that. I’m not asking you to feel guilty I’m asking you to BRING IT BACK. We have the power if we unite.
Please support your local unions, even if you can’t be in one.
Support Anarcho Syndicalism!
When people want me to hear about how good unions are, they tell me unions are the only reason anyone would ever lower work weeks to forty hours.
But when people want to tell me what a good idea the forty-hour work week is, suddenly there’s all sorts of science and evidence proving that it’s more efficient, and that you get less work done per worker (not just per hour) when you have more than 40 hours of work.
So which is it? I’ve consistently seen citations and sources backing the “this actually works better”. But if that’s true, then the dismissive claim about the “non-existant goodness of their slimy black hearts” is irrelevant. No one’s ever claimed that Henry Ford was a nice man, that I can recall. No one’s ever told me that he cared deeply about the success and happiness of workers. No, the point is that he could be as evil as you care to imagine, but as long as he was motivated by self-interest, he’d be better off with a 40-hour work week than with a 50-hour work week.
I don’t see the contradiction. There are lots of things that could actually be greatly improved upon, but anyone in charge will refuse to do it because it’s Obviously Wrong. Notice how tons of jobs don’t have healthcare benefits, even though a sick employee is an employee that can’t work; or how most US minimum wages are too low to actually survive on even though a starving employee is completely unproductive.
The 40-hour work week? Is still too much. Most people are only really productive three to four hours a day. But if you tell that to anyone who could actually enact a 20-hour week, they’ll throw you out of the room. See also how basic income is a stupid utopian thing that can’t possibly work, except every time it’s been tested it’s been shown to greatly improve living conditions across the board.
Essentially, sometimes you can be so profit-driven it turns you stupid.
“Only productive 3-4 hours a day” might actually be pretty accurate… But isn’t the same at all as a 20-hour work week. Because there’s a lot of not-very-productive stuff which is sort of part of the process.
The contradiction, from my point of view, is that sometimes I’m told that there is no reason at all for employers to have a 40-hour work week, unless it’s because they are forced to, and sometimes I’m told that it’s actually better for them too. Those are genuinely contradictory.
I think the science does back up a 40-hour work week, but that alone wouldn’t be compelling enough for virtually all employers to switch over on their own. Without unions pushing for it, I doubt that “people get pretty tired after eight hours” would ever be a bigger financial incentive than getting a few more hours of work out of your employees/having fewer shift changes/etc
I’d think most employers would prefer “more work gets done” to “less work gets done”.
seebs, what you’re missing here is that the majority of jobs aren’t office jobs and don’t require people to think, or even be coherent.
factory jobs, before labor organization, they’d make you pull your lever or sort your boxes for 12, 14 hours. they made little kids do it. they didn’t care if you were seeing double. as long as your hands kept moving, you were part of the machine.
service jobs, i know from having worked too many of them for far too little pay, they’ll schedule you two shifts back to back, they don’t give a fuck. as long as you can stand at the counter and robotically repeat “welcome to x, how can i help you?” you’re part of the machine.
the jobs where they even give a flying fuck how productive you are, those are privileged compared to most.
and funny thing, those tend to be salaried, and your boss tends not to pressure you relentlessly to work through your lunch, skip your breaks, and do unpaid overtime. because in those jobs, once the numbers on your screen start dancing the fandango, you might as well go home, and your boss knows it.
when you’re working the overnight shift at a gas station, you’re just a warm body, and you could work 24 hours straight for all your boss cares.
And yet, who actually does most of the hurting?
People who have empathy, and because they have empathy, they don’t need to think about morals. And then they discover how fun it is to dehumanize others, to think of them as “abominations”, and to delight in hurting something because it feels good. And they can’t see anything wrong with it, because the only concept they have of “right” and “wrong” is “wrong is when I would feel bad”.
I’m aware that I’m not the center of the world. Are you actually aware of that, or are you relying on a dodgy instinct which won’t always kick in to make up for not really thinking about it?
The Tin Woodman knew very well he had no heart, and therefore he took great care never to be cruel or unkind to anything.
“You people with hearts,” he said, “have something to guide you, and need never do wrong; but I have no heart, and so I must be very careful.”
—L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
yes, that exactly.
meanwhile, the people with hearts, having discovered that being kind is difficult and sometimes expensive, have gone to great lengths to find out how to not.
One of the easiest ways is dehumanization, like, you know, calling someone an abomination.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I’ve been thinking about my old jobs a lot, and I remembered something I had long-since forgotten that I wanted to bring up, which is A Thing that every hourly worker in the U.S. NEEDS TO KNOW.
Employers CAN NOT require you to work without pay.
You might be thinking, “Yeah, no shit, Styna!”
But here’s the thing… Sometimes, work doesn’t always look like ‘work.’ And, sometimes, employers try to get away with not paying you for work, because it doesn’t necessarily look like ‘work.’
I mean the whole damn point of the Nativity story is that the supposed son of God (interpret Jesus how you fucking want, of course) was born to a couple of poor, exhausted peasants in the stable for the inn, and his first bed was a feeding trough for animals. That would nowadays be like a poor couple where the mother gives birth in a parking garage behind the motel because they couldn’t find a better place and nobody else would take them in. It’s a pretty gritty setting, and the idea is that God was reborn in some of the rock-bottom lowest circumstances. The only thing majestic was all the angels and shit, and of course motherly love
I get that a lot of the art portraying Madonna and Child as fabulously wealthy europeans in splendid robes and golden light was meant to glorify God + whichever nobility was sponsoring the artist, and while of course it’s genuinely beautiful art, it just always struck me as horribly missing the point, which is that the supposed son of God started in incredibly humble circumstances, among the kind of people that everyone else looks down on
‘Massacre des Innocents’ by Leon Cogniét, 1824. Although the Feast of the Holy Innocents is in a couple of days time, this painting is still really relevant in that it portrays Mary as how She really was: a scared refugee mum, so fearful that Her son was going to be one of the Innocents killed by King Herod.
My new favorite mordern interpretation is this work, José y Maria by Everett Patterson (http://www.everettpatterson.com)
I had to look at this like FIVE TIMES to register all the layers of symbolism going into the piece by Patterson.
The hoodie as a veil.
Each of them is haloed by an advertisement sticker.
No Vacancy sign on the motel.
Dove sticker over Maria’s head.
Neon sign with a star symbol also over Maria’s head.
The crown over the ‘Dave’s City Motel’ sign. “New Manger.”
The sign behind Jose’s elbow likely says ‘Herod.’
The wee little plant growing through the cracks at their feet.
It’s like a New Testament ‘I Spy.’ I love it!
New favorite interpretation of the nativity.
The paper at José’s feet has an advert for Shepard Watches
Maria’s hoodie says Nazareth High School
The sign above José’s head proclaims ‘Good News!’
pretty sure the sticker on the phone says “ORIA!” so probably “GLORIA!”. Ads in the paper appear to be for “GLAD” and “TIDE”, which is suspiciously close to “glad tidings”. Ad above that is for “Shephard Watches”.
Tell me again how you refuse to accept your child’s autism.
Now replace the word autism with any other identity related to religion, sexuality, gender or race. Would you still say you don’t accept them?
Autism is not some unwanted mole growing on our butts or an accessory we can leave at home when it’s inconvenient.
Autism IS us.
It is our framework, our genes, our experiences, everything. Refusing to accept it is refusing to accept us.
Every time you say you refuse to accept autism, you are refusing to accept your child for who they are and no amount of “I love them” will repair that damage.
“I love you, but not your autism” is saying “I don’t love you” to your child. Full stop.
Do not try to tell me that’s wrong or that’s not how you feel. That IS how you feel!
I’m autistic, I grew up being bullied for who I am, so I know what a lack of acceptance looks like. You’re inflicting that on your child. Your own child.
The good news is you can resolve it by admitting to yourself that your views on autism are skewed, learning to accept your child as they are and working with them so they can grow up into the best autistic adult they can be instead of fighting against them until they grow up into somebody who “kind of looks neurotypical” with anxiety issues, depression, PTSD, eating disorders and / or inferiority complexes.
Don’t change your child to fit a pre-molded space in the world and then punish them when they don’t fit.
Teach the world to accept your child and let your child build their own space at their own pace while you root for them.
That teaching starts with you, parents. It starts when you listen to autistic voices and realize we have important things to say about being autistic. Every time you dismiss us, you say it’s okay for other people to dismiss your child when they grow up. Don’t be that kind of parent.
Now look at your child again.
While I agree with your point, I has to disagree with comparing to other marginalized groups.
When Jews are killed for being Jews it is the society doing it.
When Blacks (in the US) are killed for being Black, it is the society doing it.
When autistics are killed for being autistic, it is their family doing it.
There are cases of cops killing autistics, but it isn’t prejudice, it’s fear – they don’t know what they are looking at so they shoot.
(Fixing that means vetting police officers for paranoia, not claiming there is a prejudice against autistics.)
We are hurt a lot by people not understanding us, but it is not the same as anti-semitism and racism.
It is a different kind of hate, more individual and directed.
The thing is society will more inclined to raise a ruckus at somebody for rejecting / mistreating people belonging to the other identities, yet it barely lets out an indignant sniff when it’s autistic / disabled people.
I was deliberately vague and didn’t state any specific races, religions, genders, sexualities etc because I didn’t want to exclude or come off like I’m trying to jump in their lanes.
We all share a common thread: Discrimination.
Let me use a really silly example that won’t mention an IRL identity:
Some random blogger: “I love my daughter, but I refuse to accept her mermaid tail!”
Society would join the merfolk in jumping on that parent like metal to magnets. People from all sides would leave comments on the blog entry telling that parent they’re doing a disservice to their child. There might be a few that agree with the parent, but I think a majority would be upset.
Another random blogger: “I love my daughter, but I refuse to accept her autism!”
Society tells the parent how brave and honest they are. The only people making noises of opposition would be the autistic community and its allies. And other Autism Parents™ would be dismissing us by telling us to shut up and stop being disrespectful.
That is the point I was trying to make. Rejecting *anyone’s* identity harms them, yet it seems a lot of society will get angry for certain identities being rejected while acting oblivious when it happens to others.
The problem with using marginalized identities in your example is that society often does not react like in your fictional example.
People are getting abused by their parents for being gay, queer, trans, non-binary etc. every day. And way too often the only people being outraged are queer themselves, i.e. their community, and our allies.
It’s the same situation that autistics find themselves in and talking about how other marginalized identities have it better won’t help anyone.
This is all just my opinion as a queer autistic of course, but if I made that argument I’d use something like hair colour. Parents don’t regularily throw out their children for having brown hair and wider society would be outraged if that happened.
It works better as a comparison, I think.
I am 100% aware that other marginalized people face a whole lot of issues that are different than mine. I never said they didn’t. I never said autistic people have it better or worse.
But most (not all, unfortunately) decent people will pause and see how messed up their thinking is when told to replace autism with another marginalized group and restate their lack of acceptance.
The hair thing doesn’t work just like the mermaid thing in another post doesn’t work because a lot of parents won’t see the weight of the issue if you use fictional comparisons.
My post is not meant to block anyone’s lanes. I’m pointing out the whole freeway.
I do not think anyone is saying that some marginalized groups have it worse. How i interpreted the post was that neurodivergent and disabled individuals are often forgotten by other supposedly inclusive movements. Even if you only care about one marginalized group this is still an issue. There are plenty autistic, disabled, or otherwise neurodivergent people in every marginalized group (queer, poc, varying religions, etc). To illustrate this, liberal parents who support literally every other identity/group their child is a part of will often not support their child as autistic. Autistic and disabled people are also often excluded either intentionally, via lacking accessibility, or by simply being forgotten that we exist by other social change groups like intersectional feminism, blm, gay pride etc. I wouldn’t be saying that if it hasn’t literally happened to my friends with other identities in addition to being autistic. Moreover, the disabled and neurodivergent are nearly always forgotten when it comes to talk about modern nazis. Disabled and neurodivergent people were the first to be killed by the nazis, and while people finally seem to be realizing poc and lgbtq folx were also murdered, for some reason nobody outside the disabled and neurodivergent communities seems to know that we were also victims of the nazis and still are targeted by them.
I think it has a lot to do with how the medical community still views autism. To my knowledge no other identity is still listed in DSMV as being a disorder, autism still is listed as a disorder under DSMV. Disorders are seen to be needing fixed and autism cannot be “fixed” without destroying the autistic person, because it’s who they are. Society, even liberal society, frequently has no knowledge on autism despite the fact they’ve all heard of it, often supporting trashy groups such as that blue puzzle piece group i shall not name. There is no way for people like us to educate the wider community without saying “hey, you know how you support these other movements? Well they’re similar to ours so please support us too” I cannot explain how frustrating it is when my progressive friends speak up for every other marginalized group imaginable but I don’t hear a peep out of them about disabled or autistic activism,despite my repeated attempts to make them more aware. We are trying to get an even footing in the activism field here and as any oppressed person knows, sometimes the only way to do that is by shouting and making a few people angry. The problems we go through aren’t any worse, it’s the awareness among supposedly woke people that’s worse.
Yesterday I went to buy some yarn and so you know how annoying it is when fucking people put those stupid bullshit “don’t use this, wool is murder” PETA stickers on the label?
First of all, stop defacing stock in someone’s store. You’re not clever or saving the planet or anything. You’re making it hard for customers to shop and see the info they need on the label (yardage, weight, dye lot)… You’re making employees spend hours peeling the damn things off, and in some cases, you’re causing damage to the label and or yarn itself. That means loss to the company, which affects employees who probably make minimum wage, you shit bags. You want to make change happen? Contact corporate, you fuckhead. That’s where decisions are made.
Second of all, wool is not murder. Are you fucking stupid? (Obviously the answer is yes). It’s a fucking haircut for a sheep. They’ve been domesticated so long that if we don’t sheer them, it’s bad. Yes, some sheep don’t live in ideal conditions. Got a problem with that? Going to a yarn store and putting stickers on things isn’t going to change it or the minds of customers. For fuck’s sake, you absolute cockwomble, go to the yarn companies. Make them use wool providers that use humane conditions for their yarn, like A LOT OF YARN COMPANIES DO.
And third of all.
You. You precious, empty-headed little shitnugget. You complete and total sawdust-for-brains.
You put your fucking stickers all over acrylic yarn.
There’s no fucking wool in there. It’s all synthetic fiber. Basically, it’s plastic.
You fucking dumbass.
I connect with this post on a spiritual level
What’s funny is, it sounds like this is in some way exaggerated, but it turns out I’ve never actually found an example of PETA activities that weren’t roughly at this level of competence.
Related: Those plastic bloodied dummy sheep with ‘here’s the rest of your wool coat’ don’t make you look cool, edgy, hip or protective or humane towards sheep – they make you look like you can be outsmarted by a fricking bird.
As in the only reason that I’m not calling you bird-brained for doing that is that it would be an insult … to birds, that is. It makes you look like you have no clue what you’re talking about meaning people are less likely to listen to you and may buy meat just out of sheer spite – in other words, it’s a net negative on saving animal lives.
And no, my objection isn’t that the realities of the wool industry make me ‘uncomfy’ when confronted with the brutalities or some such nonsense. The point is that when using those plastic bloodied dummy sheep and referring to coats/boots/w/e, the correct caption would be “Here is the rest of your sheepskin whatever.”