From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:39:58 GMT


In a previous article, mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor) says:

>In article <1992Oct9.134942.19343@news.ysu.edu> ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>>
>>The historical record indicates that a decrease in the number of hours 
>>worked results in a proportional or more than proportional increase in
>>productivity for several reasons.
>>
>If this were true, why wouldn't companies lower their hours without
>the government requiring them to?  Why are they passing up a chance
>to make money hand over fist compared to their competitors, who are
>stupidly requiring their workers to put in a non-optimal number of
>hours?
>

During the hearings in Washington in response to the Black Bill to 
lower the workweek to 30 hours - companies testified that they
needed a law by Congress for them to be able to shorten hours
of their workers. 

They testified that on their own an individual company couldn't shorten
hours because he was at the mercy of his recalcitrant competitors.
The worst offender set the standard, not the best.

If there were a law, however, the company who wanted higher standards
to be more productive would have help policing his recalcitrant 
competitors.

There is a similar situation regarding health and safety legislation.

In the Holden versus Hardy Supreme Court Case in 1989 (Let me know
if you want more of a cite, I can provide it) The court explained
that an employer on his own will work his workers in as unsafe conditions
and as long hours as he can because he feels that that in the short run
is what will give him the highest profits.

Also, in the battle in England for the 10 hour workday, the employers who
wanted to institute the shorter hours (instead of 12, 16, etc hours) 
were constrained from doing so because of the immediate competition
they were in from their more recalcitrant competitors.

So there were employers who were in favor of the legislation,
as well as employers who were against it.

So the short term constant lowering of standards represented by
ever longer hours and more unhealth working conditions are wht
will be the situation unless there is the force of the law to
set standards at a high level.

So it seems that there is a short term concern to get ever more
profits that rules out the voluntary implementation of shorter hours,
but when that short term concern is overruled by statutory shorter
hours legislation, the benefits of the shorter hours is made clear
to all, workers and employers.

Also, it is interesting that Robert Owen in New Lanarck, Great Britain
was an employer who voluntarily instituted shorter hours and better
working conditions for the employees in his Mills, but he also
made an effort to get a law in support of what he did.

So it seems that though it has proven to be true that shorter hours
of work ends up being profitable, there are those employers who 
will not adopt such voluntarily, and they make it very difficult 
for those employers who do adopt it unless there is a law requiring it.

The early anti trust legislation in the U.S. was instituted to 
set a set of rules or standards for industry - that otherwise the 
standards were set by the most cutthroat.



>-- 
>Don McGregor             | "I..I blame society.  Society made me  
>mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  what I am."
>

Ronda
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Xref: sparky alt.amateur-comp:97 sci.econ:8082 soc.culture.usa:7725 alt.activism:17392