Work Reform

15064 readers

249 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world

65% of workers are interested in ‘microshifting’ their schedules as an alternative to the strict 9-to-5: It’s ‘a way to reclaim control’ (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 1 week ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/workreform@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Working for outcome dies not have the best track record. We kind of abolished it, because it was so bad. Factory workers getting paid for every piece of product they make is not good. That means they have to pay for their own lunch breaks and if the machine breaks down, they're paying for it. All the risk, none of the reward.

Maybe it works better for office workers, but I can't imagine it does.

Being able to felxibly fill your schedule is a whole other thing though. More like common sense.

[–] maegul@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Interesting.

I’m not sure we disagree much, especially if a flexible schedule is common sense.

In a way my main point was that however much we think it common sense, I suspect for a lot of work culture it crosses a line that maybe isn’t made explicit that much. Which, I think, is that your job is to be there and follow orders as much or more than it is to deliver well defined outcomes.

And so my point was that if we want flexible scheduling and believe it can be as productive (or more) … then I suspect we’ve gotta address this “line” … and I’m not sure what can replace it other than some established concept of “owning” your job more. Which I’m not sure has to be working for outcomes, as you say.