Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:21:11 -0500
From: devries-AT-mail.utexas.edu (Joshua DeVries)
Subject: Re: 12-Hr. Workday and Control over Time


Steve wrote:

>I pretty well agree with what you've argued about shortening the paid
>working week. I'm still uncertain however whether this should be connected
>to a guaranteed income for all. I'm inclined to think it should be, but I
>suspect that by its nature a guaranteed income is something that can only
>be won across a society, whereas shorter working hours can (I think) be won
>in a particular firm or industry. And what implications does all this have
>for the unpaid work that we and others do *outside* the paid workplace
>(most of us already know about the unpaid work we do within it)?
>

I am pretty sure the struggle for a guarateed income is one of those that
would require more effort that just reorganizing (read overthrowing)
society to reflect our needs and desires, which I think would not include
money or income. Changes in working conditions begin on the level of the
firm, which is where our strength as WORKERS (imagine pictures of stakanov
and songs by billy bragg here) lies. So the tie between income and work can
be made at the local level. In the early days, we were payed by the day, so
reduced the work day while fighting to keep the same wage. Now in a job
with the flexibility I was talking about, you have to do the same thing:
force expansion of flexibility while increasing hourly wages so you can
afford to work less.

Work outside waged labor: What sense of "work" are you using? Do you mean
general productive activity ( eg.working in your garden) or obligatory
contributions of your time that are not payed (eg. school work, transit)?

>I thought your mention of 'reformism' in this context was also interesting.
>Is it possible, as I think some Italian comrades imagine (and not only
>them), to construct some sort of 'charter' of demands (a bit similar in
>logic maybe to the trotskyists' ' transitional program') that introduces
>apparently piecemeal gains which actually work to undermine the basis of
>capital? Or is it just naive or even dangerous?
>

I generally shy away from lists of demands. Sounds too much like militant
begging. But I can see the use in certain situatuations. When "reasonable"
demands are not met, it can certainly radicalize folks. I've certainly seen
that in this contract conflict we're in now. I also see the use of certain
"bandaids" that perhaps make life a little easier without really
threatening capital. I think we are saying the same thing here. When I
talked about reduction of work hours as reformist act that ultimately can
make qualitative change, that is the same as "apparently piecemeal gains
which actually work to undermine the basis of capital".

>Finally, I wonder how common the demand for shorter working hours is
>amongst workers at present. Is it being raised where you live? Here in
>Australia, for instance, it is not really discussed in the public arena. Of
>course, that doesn't mean that workers aren't thinking or talking about it

I haven't read the papers much lately, but a couple months ago, there were
periodic articles on the possibility. I think the AFL-CIO actually said
something about it. On a personal level I had a pleasant surprise when we
started talking about the contract. I had always assumed that I was in a
minority that prefered to keep the flexibility even if it meant lower wages
that we could otherwise get. But as we organized to fight the contract
proposal that scrapped our freedom, I found even the drivers who are always
bucking to pick up overtime were immobile when it came to the right to take
off work. They may want to work a lot, but they still insist on control
over WHEN. And there are significant numbers of folks like me who would
rather work less, live frugally, and have more freedom.

>"It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it."

Depends on the color...

see ya on the barricades,
Joshu-AT-




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---