UAW’s demand for a 32-hour work week would be a win for the planet
UAW’s demand for a 32-hour work week would be a win for the planet
Long work hours don’t just wear out workers’ bodies—they take a toll on the environment, too. We need a shorter work week if we’re serious about saving the planet.
Long work hours don’t just wear out workers’ bodies—they take a toll on the environment, too. We need a shorter work week if we’re serious about saving the planet.
A t midnight on Sept. 14, the United Auto Workers’ contract with the Big Three automakers—Stellantis, Ford, and General Motors—expired. As promised by UAW President Shawn Fain, stand-up strikes began promptly at midnight. The first three plants called to strike were the General Motors Assembly Center in Wentzville, Missouri, the Stellantis Assembly Complex in Toledo, Ohio, and the final assembly and paint departments at the Ford Michigan Assembly Plant in Wayne, Michigan. Videos and photos of autoworkers pouring out of the plants and joining their union siblings on the picket line hit social media like labor’s version of the Super Bowl. On Sept. 22, stand-up strikes expanded to an additional 38 GM and Stellantis assembly plants across 20 states.
Throughout the highly publicized contract negotiations between UAW’s 146,000 autoworker members and their employers at the Big Three automakers, newly elected Fain has been calling for a 32-hour work week—a goal stated by UAW as far back as the 1930s.
“Right now, Stellantis has put its plants on critical status, forcing our members to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day in many cases, week after week, for 90 straight days. That’s not a life,” Fain said on a livestream on Aug. 25. “Critical status, it’s named right because working that much can put anyone in critical condition. It’s terrible for our bodies, it’s terrible for our mental health, and it’s terrible for our family life.”
read more: https://therealnews.com/uaws-demand-for-a-32-hour-work-week-would-be-a-win-for-the-planet
archive: https://archive.ph/jSu2n
You're viewing a single thread.
Don't these plants run 24/7? Even if each worker worked on 32 hours a week, they'd hire more workers so that the plant would be staffed 24/7, right? In that case, I don't see how that would lead to environmental benefit.
Depends if that makes financial sense. Hiring an additional crew doesn't just mean paying the labor, each employee will need an insurance and benefits package as well. If the deal says those packages can't be significantly reduced and the company can't find another way to cut costs they may be less inclined to stick to a 24/7 schedule. For example... Of course there's a lot more to it than just that.
There's a lot of time and money involved in shutting down plants of this size. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they just added more people to keep the plant running. Which like the other person said would probably turn out to be a net negative environmentally since it would be a whole shift basically of extra people driving to and from work every week.