1530
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 304 points 3 months ago

In 1884 trade unions were demanding that work days be reduced from the typical 10-12 hours (6 days a week) down to a maximum of 8 hours. They set a deadline of May 1, 1886. When that deadline wasn't met, they held a peaceful protest in Chicago. On May 3rd, angry striking workers pushed toward some gates to confront strikebreakers / scabs. The police fired on the strikers, killing 6. The next day, there was a rally at Haymarket Square. At night, the police came in force to try to disperse the crowd. Someone threw a bomb at the police, killing one of them and severely wounding others. The police fired on the crowd, and some protesters fired back. At least 4 people were killed and at least 70 injured.

The result of all this, including the unfair trials, executions, pardons, etc. was a lot of attention to the 8-hour workday movement.

In 1890, the unions planned for another strike with the goal being the 8-hour work day. This time, with the help of the second Communist International, it went worldwide. The riot in Haymarket Square in Chicago on May 1 became a rallying cry for workers worldwide, and ever since then that has been the International Workers Day. But, in the US, the fact it was associated with communism was too scary, so the US celebration of Labour was moved to Sept 1st. Instead of International Workers Day, on May 1 the US celebrates (I kid you not) "Loyalty Day" and "Law Day" -- extremely rich given that the thing that kicked it off was a time when there was a bloody confrontation between cops and labour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

A couple of decades later in the 1910s, as unions continued to push for an 8-hour work day, Henry Ford went with the 8-hour day in his factories, and that was so influential that it eventually became the norm.

The 5 day work week came after the 8 hour day. It was partially the result of Henry Ford deciding that it was more beneficial to give his workers 2 days off. It was also influenced by a cotton mill employing both Jewish and Christian workers arranging work schedules so each group could have its sabbath off. Once Ford made that rule, unions pushed extremely hard to make it a standard thing, but again, it took decades. It wasn't until 1940 that the Fair Labor Standards Act in the US made a 40 hour work week mandatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend

The point of all this?

The 40-hour work week was never "designed". People fought and died to make it a reality.

People, mostly in unions, frequently communists, fought and died to gradually reduce the number of hours that workers were expected to work. In the mid 1800s the expectation was 6 days a week, 10-12 hours a day. It took decades of fighting to get that down to 6 days of only 8 hours. It took decades more fighting to get it down to 5 days a week rather than 6 or 5.5. It was never something that was "designed". It was something that took decades of battle.

White families in the US after WWII were the first to really benefit from a law which had gone into place just before the US entered the war. Those families benefited from decades of work from labour unions and communists to get the work week down to only 40 hours. Then, the economic boom the US received from being the only major country to come out of WWII with its infrastructure essentially untouched meant that for the first time, maybe ever, working-class families were living relatively comfortable lives. The man in the family went to work for the legal maximum 40 hours, and still earned enough to support a whole family without his wife needing to work outside the home.

What has happened since then isn't that the "designed" system failed. It's that the post-war economic boom ended as other countries recovered. It's that the labour unions got weak, and the capitalists started squeezing again. The 40-hour work week is still theoretically the law of the land. It's just that take-home pay has been stalled for decades as the cost of living has gone up.

Don't get me wrong, workers today still live better than the workers did in the mid 1800s when a work week was something like 60-80 hours. But, because labour unions got weak, and communism was demonized, there was nobody to oppose the owners of capital as they found new ways to squeeze their employees. So, even with a 40 hour week, things have been getting worse.

The history of the 40 hour week is also important because it shows what's going to be needed if people want to work less than 40 hours. People are going to need strong unions. They're going to need to go on strike. They're going to need to get hurt and maybe killed by the cops who will side with the bosses. And, once enough blood has been spilled, maybe there will be reforms. Complaining about it on social media and thinking that we just need to "design" a new mutually beneficial arrangement is missing the whole point.

[-] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago

The 5 day work […] was also influenced by a cotton mill employing both Jewish and Christian workers arranging work schedules so each group could have its sabbath off.

And if we all got Friday off too, that would be convenient for the Muslims.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 months ago

Now to find a group that needs Mondays off...

[-] missphant@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 3 months ago

!garfieldism@lemmy.blahaj.zone

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Yprum@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

Very nice write up! Thanks for sharing it and taking the time to write it.

[-] Resonosity@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

Thank you for continuing this history that the US education system never taught me.

[-] Bull205@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago

Thank you putting this together.

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago

This is a great reminder, thanks for posting.

[-] Mycroft@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

I am french and may first is a public holiday, but I'm ashamed that I didn't know from where it came.. Thanks for the write up!

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago

De rien. I knew the Haymarket riots were connected to May Day, but I didn't know the full history until I read a bit more. Apparently a distant relative of mine was one of the anarchists who were blamed for throwing a bomb at the police.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 126 points 3 months ago

And even that was a compromise from just working until you drop. People organized and died for the 40-hour workweek.

[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 45 points 3 months ago

Literally got on trains, headed into West Virginia, shot at each other, stormed machine gun pillboxes, and got bombed. If it weren't for those people we'd still be in labor camps

[-] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Pinkertons murdering workers at Carnegie Steel

[-] CatLikeLemming@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 months ago

The same Pinkertons that were sent after some guy who grabbed a few Magic the Gathering cards?

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

He didn't even grab them, he was sent the wrong box by the warehouse by mistake.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 93 points 3 months ago

Yeah then women entered the workforce and employers were like, “yayyy! Now we have doubled the labor pool. We can pay people half as much by not increasing real wages for 40 years.”

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 46 points 3 months ago

This is exactly why I liked Elizabeth Warren, she seemed to be the only politician talking about the major issue with tracking "family income" as opposed to individual incomes...

I've been single for the last decade, at this point I know it is permanent. I will never have a second income. I do not enjoy living in someone else's garage as I near 40 years old... Whatever OPs image has to say, I still feel like a complete failure as societal expectations of an "adult" are pretty much everything I don't have.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 29 points 3 months ago

50 years now. The production/wage split was roughly 1973.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

Women fought for their freedom, and the corporations just said fuck it, imprison them all :/

[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 69 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

To say nothing of the massively increased productivity of modern workers (who now pay to get "trained" in college, instead of having business train employees on the company's dime).

It's also the death of the Third Places
https://medium.com/illumination/the-death-of-third-places-and-the-evolution-of-communities-5bbffc01c5e

[-] jdnewmil@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

I view college as training for dealing with deadlines and some logic practice (e.g. this essay isn't coherent; math exam next Wednesday). I never see people come through the door ready to go... it takes a few weeks before even the most basic tasks can be delegated. Their writing still sucks 90% of the time, and their math is usually shaky (lucky we have automated many steps with computers.)

I agree that the pace at which all this goes is exhausting and more breaks are needed, but the third world is still full of people working overtime to overtake these "professional" jobs that colleges purport to prep workers for. Don't go to an overpriced Ivy League school and take on debt and expect a 20h week... go to a govt sponsored school and be prepared to compete with the remote workers working for the company that is undercutting your employer. Welcome to globalization.

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 52 points 3 months ago

Been saying for a while now, 20hr full time workweek makes a lot more sense.

Since the 1970s productivity has skyrocketed while wages have remained stagnant. If they don’t want to pay us more, fine I guess, but something has to give.

The critical nuance here is that in America, vitally important healthcare services are tied to your full time employment status. Hey, repugnantcons and turbolibs: if you want us to have more babies, might be time to reconsider this policy entirely.

[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

100% agree. One of the best things that we could do for families is to detach healthcare from employment. Employers shouldn't be able to hold that over you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DogWater@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago

This such a huge point that no one in my life besides my fiance and I seem to harp on. Health insurance being tied directly to your employment is fucking dystopian. It absolutely crushes your ability to protest, strike, fight for rights against your employer, etc. because that can jeopardize your access to healthcare. It makes it so you can't even risk leaving a bad situation at work because they give you healthcare and if the grass isn't greener at some new job or a different lifestyle doesn't work out...then there's no guarantee you can get your job back and get healthcare from them.

It's an abusive relationship for them to hold your well-being over your head and restrict what you can do in life so much.

Remember when everyone was getting paid at the start of COVID to not be at work?? Biggest protests in my life happened all over the country for BLM.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 months ago

Eh, I think 30hr is totally fine. Just make it a 4-day work week and I'll probably get about the same amount of work done.

vitally important healthcare services are tied to your full time employment status

Insurance, yes. And I think that's completely BS, how much or where you work should have zero impact on your health insurance. Your employer shouldn't get to pick it, you should get to pick it. If we can separate insurance from employment, I think workers will be a lot less hesitant to leave crappy jobs...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 46 points 3 months ago

We have to be in the office 5 days a week. My boss who is a boomer/late gen X gets annoyed when people aren’t “butts in their seats 9-5”. I’m a Xellenial and really don’t care when my guys are in as long as they get things done. I keep telling him the more rigid he is with time, the more likely we are to lose good people. We’re already on thin ice with 5 days in office and have been losing people. It’s a constant fight that I have to shield them as much as possible from.

[-] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 48 points 3 months ago

In a team meeting I had a while back my lead was talking about making sure we don't get burnout. I asked if our department could trial run a 4 day work week. Their answer was "company won't allow that but if you get all your work done by Friday I won't ask questions if you're not online". Productivity and morale immediately went up. Good leads shield their team from the bullshit thank you

[-] iLove@programming.dev 21 points 3 months ago

As a software deceloper I struggle to understand that phrase "if you get all work done". That will never be the case for me, because (1) there is always more work and (2) we usually plan in more into a sprint than one can muster. That means we are always moving work from one into the next sprint. You are never done early enough to quit even a quarter of a day early.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

My current mid-manager has the same attitude that gets them our respect back, but as long as it's not codified, it's one single useful piece of corruption that'd be taken away if that gets noticed or they'd get replaced. Better to have legit short hours than cuts entirely dependent on someone's will, but we are frustratingly happy eating what occasionly falls from the table. It causes a lot of mixed feelings to say the least.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago

I really needed this. I live alone and work full time and have chronic illnesses. I struggle to keep up with everything and it drives me absolutely crazy. Idk how people can keep their homes so clean and still have time for themselves.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

hey, married people without chronic illnesses can barely manage as two people and sometimes with outside help. idk where you get the idea people have time for themselves. pretty much no one i know does.

you have a lot to sort through and you shouldn't be hindering yourself by being hard on yourself or comparing yourself to some imagined perfection outside.

small chunks, one thing at a time. if you don't have time for something don't worry about it. work on your peace of mind and wellbeing first. getting rid of some dust bunnies won't do much good if it costs you your mental health.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] phx@lemmy.ca 32 points 3 months ago

I'll add to this: it was also from an age where necessities were fairly readily available at basic income levels (in most cities) and through a lifetime you could get ahead and upgrade your house along the way while supporting a family on a single person's income.

Now you can have two people making a decent income and still have issues affording rent/mortgage. Necessities have gone up significantly while stuff like TVs have become cheaper but also shorter-lived.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

It comes from a very particular age.

It was after WWII when the US was one of the few countries that hadn't had its infrastructure destroyed by the war. It was also the late 1940s. In the 1930s the New Deal had shifted a lot of power from the rich capital owners to workers, but because of the waning years of the depression and then WWII, nobody had really seen the fruits of that work. Suddenly in the late 40s, the war ended, the US economy was in a huge boom because it was the only place in the world that could still make things, and workers had all kinds of hard-won protections.

This was never going to be sustainable. Eventually the rest of the world was going to rebuild, which was going to result in more competition, and a relative weakening of the US economy. But, the post-war years also saw union power getting weaker and weaker. A significant part of that was that organized labour smelled a lot like communism, which was the scary enemy from the end of WWII to the 90s. So... no communism, no organized labour, nobody to push back on the rich as they consolidated power.

Also, inflation isn't really the issue, it's that workers don't have the power to demand that their wages go up as well. And, of course, with so many workers supporting an anti-union, pro-business party like the GOP, worker power is going to stay near zero.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

So true. People seem to have convinced themselves that 35/40 hour weeks was some kind of ideal or agreed amount of hours we all found to be the best balance of all things.

Nope, it used to be 60, until people fought back and made them reduce the hours they're forced to work for other people's profit.

The problem is, we stopped fighting back.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago

One thing I like about WFH is that I can do the chores and stuff during the day. Take a break every hour or two is healthy, and using that time to do laundry or dishes or a quick errand means I have a lot more time in the evening and on weekends

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 24 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

40 hour week is a loss for both sides anyway. 32 hour week has superior results.

https://autonomy.work/portfolio/uk4dwpilotresults/

[-] N0body@sh.itjust.works 21 points 3 months ago

Even worse, the entire concept of clocking in and out for ~8-hour shifts comes from factory jobs during the Industrial Revolution. Missing time meant that your station on the line wasn't being manned and was holding up production. While obviously some fields still operate like that, many modern professions are task-oriented and being forced to be physically present for an entire shift is entirely unnecessary.

[-] Fallofturkey@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Super insightful, I needed this today

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

I always wondered what would happen if we had a family wage, instead of a minimum wage. The social and economic implications are an interesting thought experiment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 11 points 3 months ago

Meanwhile, in Argentina, legislators granted special powers to the president, and now he's proposing extending the work day to 12 hours.

[-] khaleer@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago

In Capitalism, wages are tied to subsistance plus replacement. This problem can only really be solved via Socialism.

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

Friendly reminder you work more now than your ancestors did before all the innovations we have now, and you get a much smaller slice of the pie for it.

[-] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

I'm working on downsizing a lot. I have so much bullshit. And people just keep getting me more. Like pls stop. I can't handle it lol

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We're seeing the race to the bottom that is inevitable under capitalism, unless there's some form of outside intervention.

When it was the norm for a single person in a household to work, wages had to be sufficient to support a household with a single source of income. Men almost always earned significantly more than women; it was assumed that a working woman was either supplementing income, or not taking care of a household, and it was assumed that a working man needed to care for a household. As women started to enter the workforce in greater numbers in the 50s and 60s, you see household incomes start inching higher; as incomes increase, prices increase to meet the available income. Rising prices leads to more women entering the workforce, because a single income is no longer sufficient to meet the requirements for a household. By the time you get to the late 80s, it's nearly impossible to have a family on a single income. Now a two income household can barely afford to even have an apartment, much less have a family.

Now you have people working a day job, and working gig jobs for secondary income, to 'get ahead'. Eventually that will be the new normal, just what is necessary to keep up with prices.

Without putting capitalism on a very short leash, this is only going to get worse.

[-] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

What if I have been having an hard time for years

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
1530 points (98.5% liked)

People Twitter

5162 readers
2174 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS