DescentBB

Glad I don't live in Wisconsin. 2 Republicans in that state, catering to the powerful industry lobbying group, WMC, or the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce group, want to eliminate the old requirement that says Wisconsin businesses have to give workers one day off for every seven. Now, many of you conservatives and business owners may think that there's nothing wrong with getting rid of this old law because, sure, there are now people who would like to work for the full seven days just so they can make more money in our new wage stagnant economy and this old law stands in the way of that. But what about the slippery slope of abuse that's sure to follow? It's happened in the past, so there is precedent. How long after the repeal of this law, if it goes through, do businesses and corporations begin to get a little greedy with their new found power and start forcing or coercing laborers and workers, who DO happen to want that one measly day off in seven to rest to be with family or church, to either work the whole week, including weekends, or get fired?

http://www.msnbc.com/all/could-workers- ... ht-weekend

it is scary just how fast people will allow the social/economic advances in labor relations developed by generations of Union efforts to completely be undone. It is almost as if folks are blissfully unaware of the workers paradise which was the US circa 1900.

it's a new order. Take Kansas, for example.....Trudeau nails that sorry mess:
http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury

Over the 25 years I have been in business, I have had to work plenty of Sundays and holidays, (today in fact) because there was work that had to be done, and if it wasn’t done there would be no business and no jobs.

So the article states that most states don’t have mandatory rest days…I don’t see people being forced to work 7 days, in those states.

The following is total BS, and is nothing more than scare tactics.

“ ‘Voluntary’ typically doesn’t mean that the worker has any choice in the matter,” she said. “It generally means, if you want to keep your job or have a job, you have to take what the employer is describing.”

Well…that’s one persons opinion…is it now yours…welcome to being brainwashed.

I’m torn on this kind of thing, because a business usually has the option to offer overtime during the week, or hire temp help. But a business should also have the option to offer extra work to their employees that already know the job, and don’t mind working 7 days and current law forbids this.

I say if a law like this is passed, then there should also be protections put in place to ensure that it is not abused. But of course the article has already slanted the discourse, and planted fear in gullible people, so as per usual, no objective debate can take place.

Yes, if there is no protection from abuse, then I am 100% against this, but other than that, I don’t see a problem.

Spidey. I see your point, but it still is a backslide for Wisconsin. If I recall correctly, there was no such provision in PA law as of 3 years back when I retired. As an hourly employee, I was subject to overtime law, but I can remember distinctly in my early career having to work as many as ten days in a row(necessitated by workflow or some sort of emergency situation which had to be addressed). I stand corrected if any of you in PA know differently.

I think this nicely balances out the Dems focus on a thirty hour work week. Which would you rather work? 30 or 56 that includes overtime? Beside which, the Wi is only removing the requirement of a rest day, not requiring you to work continuously.

woodchip wrote:I think this nicely balances out the Dems focus on a thirty hour work week. Which would you rather work? 30 or 56 that includes overtime? Beside which, the Wi is only removing the requirement of a rest day, not requiring you to work continuously.

what is this about a 'Dems Focus' on a 30-hour week? I sort of hang around with some folks in the party and have NEVER heard this one. You may be well served by having actual discussions with actual Democrats, as opposed to being spoon fed by folks with an agenda telling you what others think or support.

The only time we came close to having a 30 hour work week was in 1933, and that was supposedly brought up as a solution to get more people employed.

http://www.alternet.org/labor/when-amer ... r-workweek

Maybe it's from the Obamacare definition of a workweek, which states that working 30 hours is considered full time. But that was done to make sure part time workers in businesses that had more than 50 employees didn't get dropped out of healthcare coverage.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamaca ... -full-time

correct, TC, on both counts.

woodchip wrote:I think this nicely balances out the Dems focus on a thirty hour work week. Which would you rather work? 30 or 56 that includes overtime? Beside which, the Wi is only removing the requirement of a rest day, not requiring you to work continuously.

well, if it was a choice between a 30 hour work week with higher pay, or a 56 hour job (including overtime) with lower pay, what would you prefer? what would your family prefer? what would your friends prefer?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I think this nicely balances out the Dems focus on a thirty hour work week. Which would you rather work? 30 or 56 that includes overtime? Beside which, the Wi is only removing the requirement of a rest day, not requiring you to work continuously.

what is this about a 'Dems Focus' on a 30-hour week? I sort of hang around with some folks in the party and have NEVER heard this one. You may be well served by having actual discussions with actual Democrats, as opposed to being spoon fed by folks with an agenda telling you what others think or support.

Do try and keep up. Surprising how ignorant you can be when a issue mars your parties creds:

"Facing withering pressure to stick with the president and block any GOP effort to change Obamacare, 18 Democrats crossed the aisle to join Republicans Thursday in replacing the 30-hour work week with the traditional 40 hours, a major boost to small businesses.

Voting 248-179, the House passed Indiana Republican Rep. Todd Young’s “Save American Workers Act,” which repealed Obamacare’s 30-hour definition of full-time employment."

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:I think this nicely balances out the Dems focus on a thirty hour work week. Which would you rather work? 30 or 56 that includes overtime? Beside which, the Wi is only removing the requirement of a rest day, not requiring you to work continuously.

well, if it was a choice between a 30 hour work week with higher pay, or a 56 hour job (including overtime) with lower pay, what would you prefer? what would your family prefer? what would your friends prefer?

Except the 30 hour plan did not raise wages. What it would of caused was more layoffs and less new hires.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I think this nicely balances out the Dems focus on a thirty hour work week. Which would you rather work? 30 or 56 that includes overtime? Beside which, the Wi is only removing the requirement of a rest day, not requiring you to work continuously.

what is this about a 'Dems Focus' on a 30-hour week? I sort of hang around with some folks in the party and have NEVER heard this one. You may be well served by having actual discussions with actual Democrats, as opposed to being spoon fed by folks with an agenda telling you what others think or support.

Do try and keep up. Surprising how ignorant you can be when a issue mars your parties creds:

"Facing withering pressure to stick with the president and block any GOP effort to change Obamacare, 18 Democrats crossed the aisle to join Republicans Thursday in replacing the 30-hour work week with the traditional 40 hours, a major boost to small businesses.

Voting 248-179, the House passed Indiana Republican Rep. Todd Young’s “Save American Workers Act,” which repealed Obamacare’s 30-hour definition of full-time employment."

So now any part time employees that work less than 40 hours a week will lose their health care. Nice of those turncoat Dems to throw some people out of their coverage who used to have it. That's how companies will cut their costs now. Just make sure their employees don't work for more than 40 hours a week and make them temps. Plus those employees will be poor AND unhealthy to boot. What a great country we live in.

woodchip wrote:Except the 30 hour plan did not raise wages. What it would of caused was more layoffs and less new hires.

It wasn't meant to increase wages. It was meant to put more people back to work, which it did. During the Depression, having some wages was far preferable than no wages at all.

woodchip wrote:Except the 30 hour plan did not raise wages. What it would of caused was more layoffs and less new hires.

I'm not saying anything about the plan. I'm asking you what would your choice be if presented with the two options.

woodchip wrote: Do try and keep up. Surprising how ignorant you can be when a issue mars your parties creds:

"Facing withering pressure to stick with the president and block any GOP effort to change Obamacare, 18 Democrats crossed the aisle to join Republicans Thursday in replacing the 30-hour work week with the traditional 40 hours, a major boost to small businesses.

Voting 248-179, the House passed Indiana Republican Rep. Todd Young’s “Save American Workers Act,” which repealed Obamacare’s 30-hour definition of full-time employment."

that has utterly NOTHING to do with a mandatory work week, nor time off. It is a benchmark for providing health benefits. Oh, and it won't pass the Senate and the President would veto if it did, so more cheap political theater, and completely irrelevant to the discussion here.

tunnelcat wrote:2 Republicans in that state, catering to the powerful industry lobbying group, WMC, or the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce group, want to eliminate the old requirement that says Wisconsin businesses have to give workers one day off for every seven.

There's some irony there, in my opinion, in that most Republicans claim "Christian" values while not particularly caring about the concept of the Sabbath. I suppose when capitalism and religion compete, something has to win.

On one hand: my libertarian leanings say leave it up to the markets to hash this out, and that it's okay to eliminate the law. On the other hand: In a sense the law is good common sense. Modern companies should know by now that quality of work goes up when people get breaks, days off, etc. This isn't a old days when backs were needed to do the heavy work - these days workers need to be precise and careful more than they need to be just brute-force strong. Maybe the problem is that companies (and their "give me profits now" stockholders) sometimes forgo common sense now in the interest of making this month's P&L's look good...

This author might shed some light on your question snoopy. I think I'll get a copy myself and read it through. I'm also curious how Christianity, which bases itself on humanity, sold it's soul to join with capitalism and mold our nation into what people now call a Christian Nation, even though it's really not that at all.

tunnelcat wrote:This author might shed some light on your question snoopy. I think I'll get a copy myself and read it through. I'm also curious how Christianity, which bases itself on humanity, sold it's soul to join with capitalism and mold our nation into what people now call a Christian Nation, even though it's really not that at all.

Yeah, I have heard links between "under God" and the cold war - I'm aware of the way that the phase was born more of political sources than religious ones. I'd propose that there's a distinction between "Christian culture" which the Republican party embodies and "Christian faith" which the Bible teaches. There was a poll recently that showed that the number of people who say they are Christians has declined (did we discuss that here? I don't remember.) - but if you dig into the poll a little bit more: The people who say they are "very devout" stayed basically constant, the people who used to say "sure, I'm a Christian" changed over to "meh, I don't really care", and the people who were strongly against it stayed about constant. I'd put those middle people in the "Christian culture" bucket - people who used the name "Christian" as part of their cultural & nationalistic identity, but didn't particularly try to identify or adhere to the particular details of the faith. This explains the disconnect between the name and the actions. (Incidentally, I personally think the change in the polling is a good thing for Christianity - because it ties the name more strongly to people who are actually making an attempt at emulating Christ.)

No,no, not just the Cold War. It's a deeper conspiracy than that. Capitalists and FDR's policies and regulations are also at the root of this whole thing. The Capitalists recruited Christianity in order to break the back of the Progressive Era and it's regulations. Atheist Communism and the Soviets happened to be the icing on the cake. I do need to read the book first to get more of a gist of the history though.

NPR wrote:Kruse's book investigates how the idea of America as a Christian nation was promoted in the 1930s and '40s when industrialists and business lobbies, chafing against the government regulations of the New Deal, recruited and funded conservative clergy to preach faith, freedom and free enterprise. He says this conflation of Christianity and capitalism moved to center stage in the '50s under Eisenhower's watch.

"According to the conventional narrative, the Soviet Union discovered the bomb and the United States rediscovered God," Kruse says. "In order to push back against the atheistic communism of the Soviet Union, Americans re-embraced a religious identity. That plays a small role here, but ... there's actually a longer arc. That Cold War consensus actually helps to paper over a couple decades of internal political struggles in the United States. If you look at the architects of this language ... the state power that they're worried most about is not the Soviet regime in Moscow, but rather the New Deal and Fair Deal administrations in Washington, D.C."